"In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.""
Perhaps Labour could just tell these people they are being entirely unreasonable and "obsessed" by the topic. If they raised any concerns about child abuse next door in Rochdale they could get sickos like Roger to tell them they are prurient and drooling over it.
Standard fare is Labour call these people bigoted or racist.
As politicians and pundits from all sides scratch their heads in astonishment, take a step out of the establishment bubble and live in places like Clacton or Middleton. The Tories are crowing about an economic recovery noone can feel. About paying down our debt which has soared by 44% since the election. About how austerity is fair on working people when its the working poor watching their benefits taken away. Now have Labour proposed any real solutions - worthy tinkering yes, but still tinkering.
So for the people who work and are broke. Who want more minimum wage hours and can't get them but get their WTC cut as punishment. Who can't go back to work as childcare costs wipe out the wages they could get. Who can't see any change but downwards. Then go up an economic level and take the so-called middle class earning a bit more than the people they sneer at below them but left with increasingly less to spend and none to save. Worried about the direction the country is going because they're told is the fault of the scroungers and immigrants and they don't know if thats true but something IS broken.
For these people - and its the majority of the population - the economic model is broken no matter how hard they are told to cling to it. The social model is broken because if its all about me how come me is worse off? And the political model is broken, because the 1% bought and reshaped the parties so that all looked the same. Cameron, Clegg and Blair would all happily have coexisted in an Orwell Party all saying the same meaningless guff with the same solutions and denials.
The Tories will lose because the economy is worse than it was in 2010, people are worse off and feel it and no lies-denounced-by-ONS can make people think black actually is white. Labour are losing because half the party is still with Tony Orwell, the other half can't see past the straightjacket of non-ideas the establishment have put them in. The LibDems are a political zombie of a party and they know it. So what does that leave? Apathy yes. Non-voting yes. And for the rest? UKIP.
As I am saying to comrades on Labour facebook groups this morning you can't combat UKIP with facts because their voters (especially in the north) don't really care what their policies are. I don't think they have any thought of UKIP being in a position to implement any of them. Its not policy driving the UKIP revolution. Its rage. Its Fear. Its despair. And none of the big parties can combat this.
As politicians and pundits from all sides scratch their heads in astonishment, take a step out of the establishment bubble and live in places like Clacton or Middleton. The Tories are crowing about an economic recovery noone can feel. About paying down our debt which has soared by 44% since the election. About how austerity is fair on working people when its the working poor watching their benefits taken away. Now have Labour proposed any real solutions - worthy tinkering yes, but still tinkering.
So for the people who work and are broke. Who want more minimum wage hours and can't get them but get their WTC cut as punishment. Who can't go back to work as childcare costs wipe out the wages they could get. Who can't see any change but downwards. Then go up an economic level and take the so-called middle class earning a bit more than the people they sneer at below them but left with increasingly less to spend and none to save. Worried about the direction the country is going because they're told is the fault of the scroungers and immigrants and they don't know if thats true but something IS broken.
For these people - and its the majority of the population - the economic model is broken no matter how hard they are told to cling to it. The social model is broken because if its all about me how come me is worse off? And the political model is broken, because the 1% bought and reshaped the parties so that all looked the same. Cameron, Clegg and Blair would all happily have coexisted in an Orwell Party all saying the same meaningless guff with the same solutions and denials.
The Tories will lose because the economy is worse than it was in 2010, people are worse off and feel it and no lies-denounced-by-ONS can make people think black actually is white. Labour are losing because half the party is still with Tony Orwell, the other half can't see past the straightjacket of non-ideas the establishment have put them in. The LibDems are a political zombie of a party and they know it. So what does that leave? Apathy yes. Non-voting yes. And for the rest? UKIP.
As I am saying to comrades on Labour facebook groups this morning you can't combat UKIP with facts because their voters (especially in the north) don't really care what their policies are. I don't think they have any thought of UKIP being in a position to implement any of them. Its not policy driving the UKIP revolution. Its rage. Its Fear. Its despair. And none of the big parties can combat this.
Yup. The political equivalent of cocaine. And when Farage & Carswell are exposed as unable to deliver on their promises either, the voters will have a choice. The heroin of militaristic fascism or the rehab of anarcho-syndicalism.
Markets don't deliver and the State can't. So we shall have to do it ourselves. If we dare.
Good post overall, but what's this guff about 'Orwell'? The only thing that Tony Blair had in common with George was the surname. If anyone understood the working class of this country in the 1930s and 40s it was Eric Blair - he spent a lifetime attempting to connect with them.
A few years ago, at conference Ed said "I'm not Tony Blair" and the Labour activists cheered and booed Blair's name.
It reminded me of Emmanuel Goldstein and the two minutes of hate
I'm of the view that anything that boosts the Kipper bandwagon is good news for Labour overall, as they are always going to take more seats from the Tories.
So reasonably sanguine although I would have preferred a greater margin.
Vote Conservative get Ed Miliband as Prime Minister Vote Conservative get Ed Miliband as Prime Minister Vote Conservative get Ed Miliband as Prime Minister
How many PB Tories will now support tactical voting for UKIP in Labour constituencies ?
As I've observed before, I would, in principle.
I have previously voted Labour in order to damage Labour. In Brent East I did this in order to keep the seat marginal between Lab and LD, so that both would waste resources fighting each other and would have fewer to apply in seats where it mattered.
In Heywood I would have voted Labour rather than UKIP because it would shore up Miliband's position and having Miliband as leader damages Labour.
If it came to a choice between a UKIP and a Labour government, I would pick the latter, because while both would be odious, only the latter would be a morally indefensible national embarrassment.
I emailed YouGov yesterday requesting a copy of the data spreadsheet, but up to press nothing has been forthcoming. Without that, I fear that don't have the stamina required to open several hundred PDFs in order to extract the Green Party figures.
Labour's Northern fire-wall: less than 700 Tories....
The Tory northern strategy is now very 'complex'. To win in May they need Labour to suffer badly in their heartlands. We have seen very clearly last night that UKIP can bite huge chunks out of the Labour vote. So, perversely, in Labour's heartlands and somewhat marginal seats Dave actually needs pretty much to give up and hope for some serious tactical voting for UKIP. Imagine if UKIP could, sensationally, take 20 seats 'unexpectedly' on the back of major Tory tactical voting. They can't, of course, state this openly and will no doubt 'fight hard for every seat'.
In the Tory heartlands and Tory held marginals it's a completely different story. These they really do need to fight for body and soul. But with a loud and clear 'Labour have abandoned the WWC' message. They badly need UKIP to eat into the Labour threat in these ones.
Which all might leave us in the delicious position of a hung parliament and UKIP holding the balance of power. God knows how a Dave / Farage coalition might work. A Hammond / Carswell one might be very easy.
Yes perhaps Daves new sound bite of vote UKIP get Ed needs some refinement.
Vote Tory get ED sounds more accurate to me in the North
Dave can win Labour held marginals by letting UKIP ruin the Labour vote. He can win his own marginals by bigging up the messages we saw in his recent speech (and also hoping UKIP will eat into Labour's WWC vote). It will be the devil's own job getting messaging right vis-a-vis UKIP: Vote for them in Labour marginals but steer clear in Tory ones!
He then needs to find a way to differentiate between northern wwc and southern wwc. Will such a differentiation work?
Mr. Jessop, if unnecessary posts were frowned upon, think of all the differential front end grip the site would've missed out on.
Missed almost all of P1, but sounds like people are unimpressed with the circuit (as I was, when I saw the diagram, likewise the Baku track in Azerbaijan).
I watched FP1, and couldn't believe that it was another ******* circuit with barriers right against the track. For f's sake Tilke, look at the best circuits in the world: Monza, Spa, Silverstone, Nurburgring, and see why they are the best. Don't look at Monaco and just build another f'ing steel corridor.
Good to see Marussia were allowed to run just one car after Bianchi's crash.
I emailed YouGov yesterday requesting a copy of the data spreadsheet, but up to press nothing has been forthcoming. Without that, I fear that don't have the stamina required to open several hundred PDFs in order to extract the Green Party figures.
Singapore has barely any land and virtually no resources yet is both much wealthier than us and with much higher growth.
Yeah but they are a city state trade centre that is like Zurich, Geneva , Lichtenstein etc. Not comparable with countries. Qatar etc. are even richer but again would consider it a meaningless outlier.
Ultimately as IQ and the wealth of nations by Lynn and Vahanen showed wealth largely correlates with a people's IQ. It's why California has fallen so far, so fast.
Went to the HQ of a PLA connected supermarket chain outside Peking, they said the visiting Generals found the presentation on world resources constraints most interesting, at a company and national level they are already planning how to secure access, are we?
I emailed YouGov yesterday requesting a copy of the data spreadsheet, but up to press nothing has been forthcoming. Without that, I fear that don't have the stamina required to open several hundred PDFs in order to extract the Green Party figures.
They will email it to you eventually.
Cheers - I shall therefore wait with bated breath!
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
The commentators were making excuses (or giving reasons, if one's generous) for why people tend to think Tilke's tracks are rubbish, suggesting he doesn't have much room to work with and there are safety requirements.
Texas is a very good circuit indeed, but that just makes the tedious circuits he creates even more perplexing. It may well be that the money comes from city-states and capitals that want some tourism advertising, and street circuits tend to be rubbish.
Land is more to do with cost of living, US has loads so cheaper. I could move to Sweden or the countryside and live a lot better. As Ben Franklin pointed out the US has a lot of land and few people, unlike Europe, so enjoys higher wages and better living. Our elites seek to do the opposite by importing ever more people.
As politicians and pundits from all sides scratch their heads in astonishment, take a step out of the establishment bubble and live in places like Clacton or Middleton. The Tories are crowing about an economic recovery noone can feel. About paying down our debt which has soared by 44% since the election. About how austerity is fair on working people when its the working poor watching their benefits taken away. Now have Labour proposed any real solutions - worthy tinkering yes, but still tinkering.
snip
The Tories will lose because the economy is worse than it was in 2010, people are worse off and feel it and no lies-denounced-by-ONS can make people think black actually is white. Labour are losing because half the party is still with Tony Orwell, the other half can't see past the straightjacket of non-ideas the establishment have put them in. The LibDems are a political zombie of a party and they know it. So what does that leave? Apathy yes. Non-voting yes. And for the rest? UKIP.
As I am saying to comrades on Labour facebook groups this morning you can't combat UKIP with facts because their voters (especially in the north) don't really care what their policies are. I don't think they have any thought of UKIP being in a position to implement any of them. Its not policy driving the UKIP revolution. Its rage. Its Fear. Its despair. And none of the big parties can combat this.
The major problem is that it could take til 2025 to unwind the economic madness of GBrown and during that time global events will upset any well formed plans. We have to face it that the UK has rewarded itself far too well for over 30 years and now the world does not need us and is racing past us.
Poor parts of the world sit at the gates of Calais because of the over-generosity of our benefit system - that must cease. If Spain can manage on no/few child benefits and no working tax credit so can the UK, but we have to cut our public sector management overhead and make other services more efficient and economic efficient.
Also those who live where there is no work should be encouraged to relocate to where there is employment, as a good part of Europe seems to be able to do, let alone parts of Africa. It is no good waiting for work to come to you. We have to get real as a nation and even more important for our politicians and trade unions to get real as well.
FYI - Some of the Conservative Party's safest seats are ooop North.
Is anywhere really safe though now ?
The turnout in Heywood was 36%. In all the hysteria is 11000 the max UKIP turnout? Labours problem would seem to be the stay at homes. Will they turn out in a general election? The other point is the remark by a depressed labourite that I quickly read, that there was a right wing majority. Well I'm not sure about that - UKIP peddle labour friendly policies in labour seats - but it repeats the suggestion of UKIP splitting the right wing vote.
But Carswells remarks were strange - he sees UKIP as 'an agent for change'. It does not sound that he is particularly wedded to UKIP at all, more to his own ideas. How does he want to change UKIP?
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Singapore has barely any land and virtually no resources yet is both much wealthier than us and with much higher growth.
Yeah but they are a city state trade centre that is like Zurich, Geneva , Lichtenstein etc. Not comparable with countries. Qatar etc. are even richer but again would consider it a meaningless outlier.
Ultimately as IQ and the wealth of nations by Lynn and Vahanen showed wealth largely correlates with a people's IQ. It's why California has fallen so far, so fast.
Went to the HQ of a PLA connected supermarket chain outside Peking, they said the visiting Generals found the presentation on world resources constraints most interesting, at a company and national level they are already planning how to secure access, are we?
IQ is not a fixed thing that you are born with, however. It is largely a product of an effective education (primarily by parents but also by schools). Poland has seen a large increase in teen IQs over the last twenty years as it has reformed its education system. Research in the heritability of IQ shows that it's only about 50% down to genes, and drops to near zero for kids from poor backgrounds. California's wealth is significantly above places like Vermont and Montana.
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC Hallam: LD Hold Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain Pudsey: Lab Gain Reading West: TCTC Sherwood: Lab Gain Southampton Itchen: TCTC Thurrock: UKIP Gain Thanet South: UKIP Gain Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share, Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP.
A perfect result in Rochester would be for Labour to come through the middle and snatch it. That would really drive home the message that UKIP will put Ed "You spoke for us, Monsieur le President" Miliband in No 10. It would also entrench EdM's leadership of the party and settle Labour nerves.
A narrow Tory win there would not be a good result for the Tories, actually.
Mr. Socrates, worth mentioning that IQ is 100% artificial. By that I mean they deliberately alter the tests over time so that the results reflect a certain pattern (ie 100 is the average, 130 or 148 [depending on the type] the cut-off for top 2% etc etc).
"Still, Labour needs to work out how to put wind back in its sails and some enthusiasm on the doorstep."
I think Labour's strategy for the next election has been written by Alex Salmond. They will simply take the YES campaign almost in its entirity. It has the benefit of an already existing template but more importantly it's Saville Row tailored to Labour and presses all the right buttons. It's messages particularly on saving the NHS are also invisible to Tories
Didn't save 1,200 people in mid-Staffs did they?
Labour campaigning mainly on the NHS is hilarious, they think if you throw more money at it that is the solution. They have not got a clue.
Campaigning on the NHS with Burnham as chief spokesman as well, incredible arrogance and refusal to acknowledge the crass failings of not so long ago.
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Tories would swap their result in a heartbeat.
There were two Jim Callaghans! The former PM sat for a Cardiff seat IIRC.
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It's the only argument they've got because they know they can't beat UKIP on their actual political arguments. They're thus forced into saying "you have to put your actual views to one side to choose a party you dislike over one you dislike more, because of the distorted electoral system we fought so hard to keep."
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Tories would swap their result in a heartbeat.
not THE Jim Callaghan - there was another rather more left-wing MP with that name.
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Tories would swap their result in a heartbeat.
There were two Jim Callaghans! The former PM sat for a Cardiff seat IIRC.
Ta thought it was odd, Never knew that. What a brilliant coincidence. How much fun you could have if you were another David Cameron MP?
Singapore has barely any land and virtually no resources yet is both much wealthier than us and with much higher growth.
Yeah but they are a city state trade centre that is like Zurich, Geneva , Lichtenstein etc. Not comparable with countries. Qatar etc. are even richer but again would consider it a meaningless outlier.
Ultimately as IQ and the wealth of nations by Lynn and Vahanen showed wealth largely correlates with a people's IQ. It's why California has fallen so far, so fast.
Went to the HQ of a PLA connected supermarket chain outside Peking, they said the visiting Generals found the presentation on world resources constraints most interesting, at a company and national level they are already planning how to secure access, are we?
IQ is not a fixed thing that you are born with, however. It is largely a product of an effective education (primarily by parents but also by schools). Poland has seen a large increase in teen IQs over the last twenty years as it has reformed its education system. Research in the heritability of IQ shows that it's only about 50% down to genes, and drops to near zero for kids from poor backgrounds. California's wealth is significantly above places like Vermont and Montana.
A major credibility hurdle and objection to them being in any debates fell tonight.
No, it really didn't.
Yes, it did. On what logical basis could they now exclude Farage but include Clegg?
Unlike Clegg, Farage leads a party which has won a national Election. And a very important one: the euros.
Unlike Clegg, Farage is not in government and has no prospect of being so.
I do not understand this oft-repeated assertion that the euros are important. I could not disagree more. The euros are utterly unimportant because:
- The European parliament does nothing whatsoever of any value or impact. - It makes no decisions and changes nothing. - Electing an MEP of any party versus any other party makes absolutely no difference to anything that transpires in Yerp. - No MEP can point to any difference he or she can make to anything that arose from being an MEP. - Nobody can name their own MEP, the main groupings, the leader of the groupings, or the leader of the own party there. - There is not an opposition. - If we were to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, nothing would start to happen, stop happening, or change in any way in consequence of it that made any difference whatsoever.
The euros are elections of the profoundest unimportance. This is why even the BNP can win MEP seats: it does not matter in any way at all to anyone at all who wins. All votes are wasted votes.
The euros exist solely to provide enormous taxpayer funded cash benefits for abject nobodies.
But what a disgrace BBC QT was yesterday broadcast from Clacton. From the audience you would have thought that that UKIP would come last in an election in the district, so packed with Lab/Lib/Cons was it that I doubt there was even 2 kipper supporters there, and the one they did get a seat for was so incoherent that he made no sense at all.
If nothing else the blatant effrontery of that show should have the editors and Dimbleby sacked, not for the bias which is always there, but for the over the top bias, which was widely commented on last night.
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Neither LabourList or Leftfootfoward are happy at the H&M result:
LFF – “In what should be a fairly safe working class Labour seat, Miliband has won with a majority of just 617. Despite needing to show that it is ready for government, Labour has increased its vote share on 2010 by just 0.8 per cent.”
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Tories would swap their result in a heartbeat.
not THE Jim Callaghan - there was another rather more left-wing MP with that name.
Ta johnO. You learn something everyday. Apparently the seat was previously held by Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher.
"Labour are on course for a comfortable victory in this week’s Heywood & Middleton by-election. In a poll completed at the weekend I found the party on 47%, 19 points ahead of UKIP on 28%, with the Conservatives in third place on 16%. Nearly eight in ten local voters, including 77% of those supporting UKIP, […]"
Has Lord Ashcroft made his mea culpa over getting his poll so wrong? And if he was so wrong in this, what does it say about his other polling of the marginals?
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP.
A perfect result in Rochester would be for Labour to come through the middle and snatch it. That would really drive home the message that UKIP will put Ed "You spoke for us, Monsieur le President" Miliband in No 10. It would also entrench EdM's leadership of the party and settle Labour nerves.
A narrow Tory win there would not be a good result for the Tories, actually.
Quote ""Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP."
In a Labour held marginal why would a Labour voter switch and vote for UKIP? Because a Tory had said "Vote UKIP, get Labour"? Come on, that doesn't make sense.
Do people actually know what they are voting for if they stick a cross in a UKIP box ? Not long after the 2010 election, UKIP junked their manifesto and said some of it was rubbish. I think Farage is on record saying he does not understand why some things were in the manifesto.
Some people are going to regret voting UKIP when they realise what some of their policies are .They are the anti establishment party, who don't go along with some of the political correctness, but they also have views which most people would find are a bit old fashioned to say the least.
It is important that the other political parties start to take UKIP seriously and to stop the personal attacks. Concentrate on examining their policies and explain why these are wrong.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
They're thus forced into sayour actual views to one side to choose a party you dislike over one you dislike more, because of the distorted electoral system we fought so hard to keep."
Yup. That's the choice voters have next May. David who will renegotiate our relationship with the EU and give you the referendum you crave, or Ed who won't.
Your new MP was saying that too until a few weeks ago. He only defected because he feared UKIP would cause him to lose his seat if he remained a Tory.
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC Hallam: LD Hold Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain Pudsey: Lab Gain Reading West: TCTC Sherwood: Lab Gain Southampton Itchen: TCTC Thurrock: UKIP Gain Thanet South: UKIP Gain Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share, Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
Wow that would be a UKIP breakthrough.
I would put UKIP on a maximum of 5 myself and maybe as low as 1 (Clacton) but we will see,
I do think they will gain Rochester next month though
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP.
A perfect result in Rochester would be for Labour to come through the middle and snatch it. That would really drive home the message that UKIP will put Ed "You spoke for us, Monsieur le President" Miliband in No 10. It would also entrench EdM's leadership of the party and settle Labour nerves.
A narrow Tory win there would not be a good result for the Tories, actually.
Quote ""Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP."
In a Labour held marginal why would a Labour voter switch and vote for UKIP? Because a Tory had said "Vote UKIP, get Labour"? Come on, that doesn't make sense.
Some voters are stupid. Particularly Labour ones...
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC Hallam: LD Hold Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain Pudsey: Lab Gain Reading West: TCTC Sherwood: Lab Gain Southampton Itchen: TCTC Thurrock: UKIP Gain Thanet South: UKIP Gain Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share, Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
Wow that would be a UKIP breakthrough.
I would put UKIP on a maximum of 5 myself and maybe as low as 1 (Clacton) but we will see,
I do think they will gain Rochester next month though
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP.
A perfect result in Rochester would be for Labour to come through the middle and snatch it. That would really drive home the message that UKIP will put Ed "You spoke for us, Monsieur le President" Miliband in No 10. It would also entrench EdM's leadership of the party and settle Labour nerves.
A narrow Tory win there would not be a good result for the Tories, actually.
Quote ""Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP."
In a Labour held marginal why would a Labour voter switch and vote for UKIP? Because a Tory had said "Vote UKIP, get Labour"? Come on, that doesn't make sense.
Some voters are stupid. Particularly Labour ones...
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
It is, after all, not a big step from "coming over here taking our jobs" to "coming over here and clogging up our NHS".
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC Hallam: LD Hold Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain Pudsey: Lab Gain Reading West: TCTC Sherwood: Lab Gain Southampton Itchen: TCTC Thurrock: UKIP Gain Thanet South: UKIP Gain Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share, Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
Wow that would be a UKIP breakthrough.
I would put UKIP on a maximum of 5 myself and maybe as low as 1 (Clacton) but we will see,
I do think they will gain Rochester next month though
I think UKIP have the big "mo" now. Carswell winning sends out the message - vote UKIP, get UKIP.
"In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.""
Perhaps Labour could just tell these people they are being entirely unreasonable and "obsessed" by the topic. If they raised any concerns about child abuse next door in Rochdale they could get sickos like Roger to tell them they are prurient and drooling over it."
I feel embarrassed reprinting your post in full but without doing I wouldn't be able to make the point that the last paragraph written by you and the first paragraph written by the Guardian are not talking about the same subject.
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
They're thus forced into sayour actual views to one side to choose a party you dislike over one you dislike more, because of the distorted electoral system we fought so hard to keep."
Yup. That's the choice voters have next May. David who will renegotiate our relationship with the EU and give you the referendum you crave, or Ed who won't.
Your new MP was saying that too until a few weeks ago. He only defected because he feared UKIP would cause him to lose his seat if he remained a Tory.
Cameron won't do anything but only the most superficial renegotiation. And, of course, he won't do anything on all the other important things voters care about. The practical effects of either Labour or the Conservatives on levels of immigration, for example, are identical.
As for your last line, that is pure stupidity, completely out of touch with reality. The only people that could possibly but that line forward are just spin machines for their party. Carswell had an insurmountable majority and political scientists studying UKIP's rise said there was no chance of UKIP overturning it. You're creating made-up facts to justify an indefensible argument.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
If immigrants are going to be a financial drag on the host country, they are not an asset.
Did you know the cost of treating HIV in this country is less than one billion pounds.
A lot less than diabetes.
As Mark Wallace points out, being HIV positive doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Great, we can block immigrants with diabetes too. And any other chronic diseases. Oh, and give them a DNA test so we can check for some, possible recessive, hereditory diseases. Those foreigners breed like ra-- er, I mean it's all in pursuit of our totally rational and utilitarian evaluation of an immigrant's "quality".
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
As the Lib Dems pointed out last night on Question Time our health system is under enough strain as it is.
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Yeah that HIV comment was disgusting.
He's a vile creature, lumping in HIV sufferers with murderers.
In the way that the current government lumps in non-EU applicants without degrees in with murderers? That was a particularly foolish point coming from you.
Glad the Tory command seems (since the conference speech onwards) to be going big on the "Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP.
A perfect result in Rochester would be for Labour to come through the middle and snatch it. That would really drive home the message that UKIP will put Ed "You spoke for us, Monsieur le President" Miliband in No 10. It would also entrench EdM's leadership of the party and settle Labour nerves.
A narrow Tory win there would not be a good result for the Tories, actually.
Quote ""Vote UKIP, get Labour" line. It's a compelling one, and needs to be heard.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP."
In a Labour held marginal why would a Labour voter switch and vote for UKIP? Because a Tory had said "Vote UKIP, get Labour"? Come on, that doesn't make sense.
Some voters are stupid. Particularly Labour ones...
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Yeah that HIV comment was disgusting.
He's a vile creature, lumping in HIV sufferers with murderers.
In the way that the current government lumps in non-EU applicants without degrees in with murderers? That was a particularly foolish point coming from you.
You really are blind to the vileness of Nigel Farage.
If immigrants are going to be a financial drag on the host country, they are not an asset.
Did you know the cost of treating HIV in this country is less than one billion pounds.
A lot less than diabetes.
As Mark Wallace points out, being HIV positive doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Because a lot more people suffer from diabetes. And people with diabetes don't spread it to others, while the average HIV sufferer pass it on to several other people.
Of course it doesn't make you a lower quality person, in the same way that not having a doctorate doesn't make you a lower quality person. Both, however, make you lower quality from the perspective of being a net contributing immigrant.
The Crawley council result confirmed what is now a definite trend since 2012 as ToryUkip-Con defector- loses a council by-election to Lab.This may be microcosmic of a wider process voters go through as with the LibDems during their meteoric period.It took the voters a while to work out but as soon as they were in control of councils,they invariably mucked it up and got thrown out of city after city.It seems as soon as people see the reality of what Ukip offers in action,as with the Libs,they don't like it and throw them out too. As for last night's other elections,the huge issue is turnout,or rather the lack of it.These elections might over-excite a few politicos but 36 and 51 are dreadful percentage figures.These turnout figures reveal anyone using the word historic needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.What is historically important is the long-term trend of non-participation in what is deemed to be a democracy.
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
well if it's morality you're worried about, why doesn't the NHS budget stretch to treating many of our fellow citizens ? Why do people with cancers not get the drugs which prolong their lives or need to seek treatment in the Czech Republic ? Are you saying NICE is immoral ? If so why hasn't Cameron wound it up ?
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Neither LabourList or Leftfootfoward are happy at the H&M result:
LFF – “In what should be a fairly safe working class Labour seat, Miliband has won with a majority of just 617. Despite needing to show that it is ready for government, Labour has increased its vote share on 2010 by just 0.8 per cent.”
They shouldn't be overjoyed but have people forgotten how to interpret By-Election results?
The SNP won Glasgow East in the 2008 by-election with a majority of 365 only to lose it two years later by 11,840.
The turnout at Heywood was down over 17 thousand from the General Election. Do people think that activist UKIP voters make up the majoirty of that number instead of "can't be arsed to turn out for relatively safe by-election Labour voters"
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
Presumably it would be a question in the application form when you apply for a visa.
Malala Yousafzai is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obviously she wouldn't be welcome here under Nigel Farage, as she's a lower quality person with her constant medical needs.
TSE: great news about Malala Yousafzai. It seems the prize committee have actually made a good decision after some of their more recent choices (cough) Obama(cough).
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Its a very expensive disease to treat.
Don't try and defend the indefensible.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
If a migrant is incoming with a long term relatively expensive disease or disorder to treat then they should need to cover the cost to the NHS out of their own pocket.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Another case of metropolitan views clashing with working class views. Personally, I'm with TSE on this one, but I can't seen that policy doing Farage or UKIP any harm amongst their target vote.
Indeed, that's the point that Guido Fawkes and Mark Wallace is making.
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
well if it's morality you're worried about, why doesn't the NHS budget stretch to treating many of our fellow citizens ? Why do people with cancers not get the drugs which prolong their lives or need to seek treatment in the Czech Republic ? Are you saying NICE is immoral ? If so why hasn't Cameron wound it up ?
Silly argument from you Mr Eagles.
That's not my argument, and you know it.
Farage is saying anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person, and should be rejected automatically.
I'm saying, 1) They are not lower quality people 2) I prefer to look at the quality they bring to this country overall.
Just imagine if Stephen Hawking wasn't British, and he wanted to emigrate here, he'd be rejected.
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
You cannot enforce it at entry points (or very ineffectively) ,what I presume he means is that the NHS will not treat newly arrived immigrants for it and thus presumably deter people with HIV from coming in the first place. Not saying that is right or wrong. On the face of it, it looks mean but I don't think he really has lumped HIV sufferers with murderers from what he has said .I suppose he is addressing the very practical issue of NHS costs head on which the other parties continue to prefer to deal with it in fluffy platitudes especially labour
I notice Labour's vote percentage has increased in Haywood since the GE. Not bad in a by election against the combined might of the 'new right' is it?
The LabourList view:
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
Neither LabourList or Leftfootfoward are happy at the H&M result:
LFF – “In what should be a fairly safe working class Labour seat, Miliband has won with a majority of just 617. Despite needing to show that it is ready for government, Labour has increased its vote share on 2010 by just 0.8 per cent.”
They shouldn't be overjoyed but have people forgotten how to interpret By-Election results?
The SNP won Glasgow East in the 2008 by-election with a majority of 365 only to lose it two years later by 11,840.
The turnout at Heywood was down over 17 thousand from the General Election. Do people think that activist UKIP voters make up the majoirty of that number instead of "can't be arsed to turn out for relatively safe by-election Labour voters"
Has a party ever had voters as lazy as Labour before ?
Comments
Standard fare is Labour call these people bigoted or racist.
Markets don't deliver and the State can't. So we shall have to do it ourselves. If we dare.
It reminded me of Emmanuel Goldstein and the two minutes of hate
I'm of the view that anything that boosts the Kipper bandwagon is good news for Labour overall, as they are always going to take more seats from the Tories.
So reasonably sanguine although I would have preferred a greater margin.
I have previously voted Labour in order to damage Labour. In Brent East I did this in order to keep the seat marginal between Lab and LD, so that both would waste resources fighting each other and would have fewer to apply in seats where it mattered.
In Heywood I would have voted Labour rather than UKIP because it would shore up Miliband's position and having Miliband as leader damages Labour.
If it came to a choice between a UKIP and a Labour government, I would pick the latter, because while both would be odious, only the latter would be a morally indefensible national embarrassment.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/93a6r9dwd979w6q/YouGov since 01 Sept 2013(2).jpg#
@TheScreamingEagles @OblitusSumMe
I emailed YouGov yesterday requesting a copy of the data spreadsheet, but up to press nothing has been forthcoming. Without that, I fear that don't have the stamina required to open several hundred PDFs in order to extract the Green Party figures.
Labour 2014: 40.9%
Wow. Can they do as well in their national results? Hit 30%?
--------------------
The two Heywood polls had Labour at 47%, and 50%. UKIP at 31% and 28%.
So a late swing (the most recent poll was 4 October) would explain the difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heywood_and_Middleton_by-election,_2014#Polling
He then needs to find a way to differentiate between northern wwc and southern wwc. Will such a differentiation work?
Good to see Marussia were allowed to run just one car after Bianchi's crash.
They got absolutely stuffed in their heartlands.
Ultimately as IQ and the wealth of nations by Lynn and Vahanen showed wealth largely correlates with a people's IQ. It's why California has fallen so far, so fast.
Went to the HQ of a PLA connected supermarket chain outside Peking, they said the visiting Generals found the presentation on world resources constraints most interesting, at a company and national level they are already planning how to secure access, are we?
01.48: Labour are claiming that Heywood and Middleton is a good result because the Labour voteshare increased.
However, it is increased from 40.1% in 2010 to 40.9%. That is not a big increase, and certainly not when you factor in the smaller turnout (we got almost 7,000 fewer votes) and the very small majority (down from 5,971 to 617). All in all, it is a very worrying result for us
The commentators were making excuses (or giving reasons, if one's generous) for why people tend to think Tilke's tracks are rubbish, suggesting he doesn't have much room to work with and there are safety requirements.
Texas is a very good circuit indeed, but that just makes the tedious circuits he creates even more perplexing. It may well be that the money comes from city-states and capitals that want some tourism advertising, and street circuits tend to be rubbish.
1) Labour do worse than opinion polls suggest - seen in all Clacton and Newark polls too;
2) Some Tories voted tactically for UKIP in Heywood.
Farage is right; "Vote Dave, Get Ed" holds true in certain parts of the North.
There must be many that can see that.
Poor parts of the world sit at the gates of Calais because of the over-generosity of our benefit system - that must cease. If Spain can manage on no/few child benefits and no working tax credit so can the UK, but we have to cut our public sector management overhead and make other services more efficient and economic efficient.
Also those who live where there is no work should be encouraged to relocate to where there is employment, as a good part of Europe seems to be able to do, let alone parts of Africa. It is no good waiting for work to come to you. We have to get real as a nation and even more important for our politicians and trade unions to get real as well.
The other point is the remark by a depressed labourite that I quickly read, that there was a right wing majority. Well I'm not sure about that - UKIP peddle labour friendly policies in labour seats - but it repeats the suggestion of UKIP splitting the right wing vote.
But Carswells remarks were strange - he sees UKIP as 'an agent for change'. It does not sound that he is particularly wedded to UKIP at all, more to his own ideas. How does he want to change UKIP?
Labour should be looking for 50-58% here. Didn't realise at this was once Jim Callaghans seat.
The best Labour can say is that they ground out a result when they weren't playing well and avoided a catastrophe.
Tories would swap their result in a heartbeat.
These kipper enthusiasts are keen punters it seems.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme
Farage including HIV status in his judgement of the "quality" of migrants is disgusting. Being HIV+ doesn't make you a lower quality person.
CON 284 (+12)
LAB 298 (-12)
LIB 26 (-2)
NAT 14 (-)
UKIP 10 (+2)
(NI 18) (-)
Seats to watch:
Dumfries & Galloway: TCTC
Hallam: LD Hold
Inverness, Bairn & Strathspey - SNP Gain
Pudsey: Lab Gain
Reading West: TCTC
Sherwood: Lab Gain
Southampton Itchen: TCTC
Thurrock: UKIP Gain
Thanet South: UKIP Gain
Torbay - Con Gain
UKIP Gains: Boston, Great Grimsby, Clacton, Great Yarmouth, Basildon & SE Thurrock, Rotherham, Rochester, Thanet South (+ 2 others)
Con to win national vote share,
Lib-Lab coalition Gov't.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP.
A perfect result in Rochester would be for Labour to come through the middle and snatch it. That would really drive home the message that UKIP will put Ed "You spoke for us, Monsieur le President" Miliband in No 10. It would also entrench EdM's leadership of the party and settle Labour nerves.
A narrow Tory win there would not be a good result for the Tories, actually.
All the tactical voting yesterday was against UKIP. Voters hate UKIP. UKIP doing well is an illusion!
Eastleigh; +0.2%
South Shields; -1.6%
Wythenshawe and Sale; +11.2%
Newark; -4.6%
Clacton; -13.8%
Heywood and Middleton; +0.8%
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/surfing-purple-wave-ukip-general.html
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/surfing-purple-wave-ukip-general.html
What a fine post
Americans can't move away from California fast enough to get to Vermont and Montana.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.VDed8mlwbqC
I do not understand this oft-repeated assertion that the euros are important. I could not disagree more. The euros are utterly unimportant because:
- The European parliament does nothing whatsoever of any value or impact.
- It makes no decisions and changes nothing.
- Electing an MEP of any party versus any other party makes absolutely no difference to anything that transpires in Yerp.
- No MEP can point to any difference he or she can make to anything that arose from being an MEP.
- Nobody can name their own MEP, the main groupings, the leader of the groupings, or the leader of the own party there.
- There is not an opposition.
- If we were to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, nothing would start to happen, stop happening, or change in any way in consequence of it that made any difference whatsoever.
The euros are elections of the profoundest unimportance. This is why even the BNP can win MEP seats: it does not matter in any way at all to anyone at all who wins. All votes are wasted votes.
The euros exist solely to provide enormous taxpayer funded cash benefits for abject nobodies.
But what a disgrace BBC QT was yesterday broadcast from Clacton. From the audience you would have thought that that UKIP would come last in an election in the district, so packed with Lab/Lib/Cons was it that I doubt there was even 2 kipper supporters there, and the one they did get a seat for was so incoherent that he made no sense at all.
If nothing else the blatant effrontery of that show should have the editors and Dimbleby sacked, not for the bias which is always there, but for the over the top bias, which was widely commented on last night.
LFF – “In what should be a fairly safe working class Labour seat, Miliband has won with a majority of just 617. Despite needing to show that it is ready for government, Labour has increased its vote share on 2010 by just 0.8 per cent.”
http://leftfootforward.org/2014/10/labour-has-a-working-class-problem/
Good move by Farage, another policy the people are right and the lefty establishment wrong.
Why not pick on someone with MS or diabetes?
Has Lord Ashcroft made his mea culpa over getting his poll so wrong?
And if he was so wrong in this, what does it say about his other polling of the marginals?
http://www.thebody.com/content/art2244.html
If immigrants are going to be a financial drag on the host country, they are not an asset.
It also has the attraction that in some Labour held marginals it could help the Tories by causing some Labour voters to switch to UKIP."
In a Labour held marginal why would a Labour voter switch and vote for UKIP? Because a Tory had said "Vote UKIP, get Labour"?
Come on, that doesn't make sense.
Some people are going to regret voting UKIP when they realise what some of their policies are .They are the anti establishment party, who don't go along with some of the political correctness, but they also have views which most people would find are a bit old fashioned to say the least.
It is important that the other political parties start to take UKIP seriously and to stop the personal attacks. Concentrate on examining their policies and explain why these are wrong.
Diabetes; HIV; MS;Osteoarthritis, whatever.
Your new MP was saying that too until a few weeks ago. He only defected because he feared UKIP would cause him to lose his seat if he remained a Tory.
I would put UKIP on a maximum of 5 myself and maybe as low as 1 (Clacton) but we will see,
I do think they will gain Rochester next month though
A lot less than diabetes.
As Mark Wallace points out, being HIV positive doesn't make you a lower quality person.
Do you agree with Nigel Farage that someone with HIV is a lower quality person?
It is, after all, not a big step from "coming over here taking our jobs" to "coming over here and clogging up our NHS".
"In three visits to the area over the last two weeks, almost all the voters I spoke to began each conversation by saying, unprompted, that they were concerned about immigration – the electrician complaining about wages being undercut by eastern European workers, the parents unable to get their offspring into local primary schools because immigrant children were taking up scarce places, the patients waiting for a GP appointment in a waiting room filled with foreign chatter. Others said things like: “I just want our country back.""
Perhaps Labour could just tell these people they are being entirely unreasonable and "obsessed" by the topic. If they raised any concerns about child abuse next door in Rochdale they could get sickos like Roger to tell them they are prurient and drooling over it."
I feel embarrassed reprinting your post in full but without doing I wouldn't be able to make the point that the last paragraph written by you and the first paragraph written by the Guardian are not talking about the same subject.
Get help.
As for your last line, that is pure stupidity, completely out of touch with reality. The only people that could possibly but that line forward are just spin machines for their party. Carswell had an insurmountable majority and political scientists studying UKIP's rise said there was no chance of UKIP overturning it. You're creating made-up facts to justify an indefensible argument.
Mark Wallace @wallaceme
@GuidoFawkes and mine is that a party deliberately lumping people with HIV with murderers and the unskilled is morally flawed.
Roger is right, you need help.
Of course it doesn't make you a lower quality person, in the same way that not having a doctorate doesn't make you a lower quality person. Both, however, make you lower quality from the perspective of being a net contributing immigrant.
As for last night's other elections,the huge issue is turnout,or rather the lack of it.These elections might over-excite a few politicos but 36 and 51 are dreadful percentage figures.These turnout figures reveal anyone using the word historic needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt.What is historically important is the long-term trend of non-participation in what is deemed to be a democracy.
Is it going to be one of those tickbox forms at heathrow "I don't have HIV" - or are we going to test everyone? How is he going to exclude those who are undetectable?
Malala Yousafzai is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obviously she wouldn't be welcome here under Nigel Farage, as she's a lower quality person with her constant medical needs.
http://cdn.jewsnews.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/616.jpg
Silly argument from you Mr Eagles.
The SNP won Glasgow East in the 2008 by-election with a majority of 365 only to lose it two years later by 11,840.
The turnout at Heywood was down over 17 thousand from the General Election. Do people think that activist UKIP voters make up the majoirty of that number instead of "can't be arsed to turn out for relatively safe by-election Labour voters"
Waterloo (Blackpool) result:
CON - 34.5% (-5.3)
UKIP - 31.6% (+31.6)
LAB - 29.5% (-17.5)
LDEM - 2.9% (-10.3)
BNP - 1.4% (+1.4)
It was jointly awarded with Kailash Satyarthi (whom the BBC mis-spell as 'Kailash Satyrathi').
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kailash_Satyarthi
Both deserving recipients.
But I wish you hadn't sullied the news with the rest of your comment.
Farage is saying anyone with a long term medical condition is a lower quality person, and should be rejected automatically.
I'm saying, 1) They are not lower quality people 2) I prefer to look at the quality they bring to this country overall.
Just imagine if Stephen Hawking wasn't British, and he wanted to emigrate here, he'd be rejected.
Not saying that is right or wrong. On the face of it, it looks mean but I don't think he really has lumped HIV sufferers with murderers from what he has said .I suppose he is addressing the very practical issue of NHS costs head on which the other parties continue to prefer to deal with it in fluffy platitudes especially labour
Conservative 649
Ukip 359
Labour 80
Green Party 35
Liberal Democrats 34
Turnout: 28.1 per cent
Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzai win #NobelPeacePrize "for their struggle against the suppression of children"
Good choice. Is Malala the youngest ever Nobel Prize winner?