And I am not sure it´s a gaffe. The great and the good are scandalised. The riff raff are supporting.
What other illnesses would you apply it to? TB? Diabetes? Cancer? Why just HIV?
Because HIV continues to be, especially among people of a certain age, associated with specific lifestyle choices
If you were to say AIDS And TB yes, cancer and diabetes No, I wonder what the reasoning might be?
Well it could be that you don't like poor people from Africa.
Or it could be that AIDS and TB are communicable
It might be that you don't blame diabetics for failure to control their behaviour but you do blame AIDS victims for the same.
But in essence Farage is blowing a loud dog whistle and then lots of UKIP supporters scurry around trying to prove it wasn't a dog whistle because it wasn't meant to mean what people intepreted it as. But they ignore th fact that most people don't read PB and will just hear the whistle.
(If he had said that new immigrants shouldn't have free access to the NHS for a number of years that would have been entirely respectable. Aiming to restrict immigration by implying that foreigners are sick and nasty is, well, just sick and nasty).
But hang on, Ebola infection correlates I would think upwards of 99% with being a poor black African. Ebola screening was introduced this morning by the government. Is it the case that they introduced it in a rich, Etonian sort of way while farage made his suggestion in a nouveau riche, minor public school sort of way? Because all he seems to me to be implying is that people with very serious communicable diseases have very serious communicable diseases.
Shadsy will NOT be popular amongst PBTories. He is forgetting the PBTory mantra that UKIP hurts Labour just as much as the Tories.
I would generally agree with the list. But Spelthorne ? That's my neck of the woods !
Great betting opportunities for those on here who have spent much of the morning explaining in great detail why the Kipper surge is bad for Ed.
That said I kindly offered to bet myself yet strangely none of them took me up on it!
"If X happens than Y and Z will occur and this will spell disaster for Ed Miliband"
Whatever the faults of the PB tories they cannot be compared with those of the boba - job/fett/miliband, etc,etc. They suffer from the really bad ones of being both boring and unerringly repetitive.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
And I am not sure it´s a gaffe. The great and the good are scandalised. The riff raff are supporting.
What other illnesses would you apply it to? TB? Diabetes? Cancer? Why just HIV?
Because HIV continues to be, especially among people of a certain age, associated with specific lifestyle choices
Or surely more likely, (and less of an angry Tory smear) because cancer, diabetes etc. are not transmittable? TB is another story -this country had all but eliminated TB, and mass immigration has brought it back.
So what do you want to do with all the. Brits with HIV? Lock them up?
I think you're failing to understand the message - which was about ensuring that NHS resources which are limited, are provided for the indigenous UK population rather than potential immigrants with HIV or other diseases. I am not a UKIP supporter but attempts to attack them in this way are totally counter-productive. Do not expect UKIP voters or potential voters to be shocked back to Labour/Conservative, etc by criticising suggestions that immigration of those who may add to the burden on the NHS should be curtailed.
Brook lands is the main road I was canvassing yesterday... The houses are basically holiday chalets from the 50s
One of the houses had the front door wide open with a speaker in the doorway facing out blaring eminem at full volume... I pointed at the Ukip badge and did a thumbs up/ down... I ended up going in there while the bloke , in his fifties, and his son were drinking beer smoking drugs saying they were from barking and voting national front!
The son said come round my mates I'll ask him who he's voting for, but mind the pitbull, I said it's ok I'll put him down as a maybe
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
That's the Parris position, which he was reiterating again this morning: that the voters are simply wrong on some issues and need to be told so and why.
What he was also arguing was that pretending to "understand" a voter's concern when in fact you don't and/or don't agree with it, is the worst of all worlds. Better the first option - disagreeing openly - than patronising the voter in the way that the main political parties do. I think a lot of voters clearly sense the insincerity in the expressions of concern by the main parties over what bugs the average voter - hell I do - and now some of them have a choice which enables them to wave 2 fingers at those parties.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
Well Done on your Clacton work iSam. You must be feeling especially chuffed today. :-)
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
We're all putting a brave face on it but a pretty depressing day for the UK or more particularly England. The most pertinant comment today was "England's just got a whole lot smaller".
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
He's clearly not a Tory on holiday. What he may be is a Libertarian without a true party. How and in which direction(s) UKIP develop a consistent message in the 2015-2020 parliament will be one of the more interesting points of its development.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
This.
As somebody very close to the ground and action the abuse we receive can be vile, Nigel has the utmost respect in the party for the way he's handled it for 20 years, Douglas is clearly impressed.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
That's the Parris position, which he was reiterating again this morning: that the voters are simply wrong on some issues and need to be told so and why.
What he was also arguing was that pretending to "understand" a voter's concern when in fact you don't and/or don't agree with it, is the worst of all worlds. Better the first option - disagreeing openly - than patronising the voter in the way that the main political parties do. I think a lot of voters clearly sense the insincerity in the expressions of concern by the main parties over what bugs the average voter - hell I do - and now some of them have a choice which enables them to wave 2 fingers at those parties.
If the major parties came clean with what they actually stand for they will be lucky to win 25 % of the vote individually each. The reality is their position is that of a statist centralised establishment elite serving vested interests and in a democracy they will always lose.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
We're all putting a brave face on it but a pretty depressing day for the UK or more particularly England. The most pertinant comment today was "England's just got a whole lot smaller".
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It's the dawning of the age of Socrates.
What a horrible thought
Still, we can be thankful it's the passing of the age of those that would be apologists for paedophiles.
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
Well Done on your Clacton work iSam. You must be feeling especially chuffed today. :-)
Thank you... I absolutely loved it to be honest.. Apparently my political naivety showed as I let a Jaywick resident chew my ear off for 30 mins by actually listening to him though!
Farage seems a really nice guy with no hairs and graces.. It was his idea to go to the roughest part of town and knock on doors... (although maybe he shouldve beeen in Manchester?)
I can see why those who support other parties are looking for fractures in the dynamic, but as a kipper I couldn't have wished for any other MP than Carswell, I think he is perfect for the party... allow us our moment!
The celebration as the results came in was different class, it really was like being with a load of mates watching your team in the cup final.. really feels like something happening
Also at 39 I was definitely not one of the young crowd. I would say 20-25% of people there were under 30
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
Andy Burnham was a hoot on WATO, all the problems are with the Tories all Labour has to do is listen a bit more
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
Andy Burnham was a hoot on WATO, all the problems are with the Tories all Labour has to do is listen a bit more
John Mann MP @JohnMannMP · 14h 14 hours ago Ed Miliband does a lot of listening. Now he needs to do a bit more hearing.
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
This.
As somebody very close to the ground and action the abuse we receive can be vile, Nigel has the utmost respect in the party for the way he's handled it for 20 years, Douglas is clearly impressed.
One of the highlights of the day was getting an earful off a Stand Up to UKIP swampy outside Clacton Town Hall, pointing behind him and shouting " Oh my god what's that?" and watching him fall for it as I walked off laughing
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
Andy Burnham was a hoot on WATO, all the problems are with the Tories all Labour has to do is listen a bit more
John Mann MP @JohnMannMP · 14h 14 hours ago Ed Miliband does a lot of listening. Now he needs to do a bit more hearing.
Bobajob is now feverishly Tweeting Mann to tell him he's wrong.
Those of us in Doncaster when Reckless was introduced experience spontaneous euphoria usually associated with pop concerts or sporting events. Reckless and Carswell have admitted never feeling so excited or so welcome. Anybody who thinks ukip support will do anything but increase between now and May is deluded.
These by elections have seen the major parties throw resources at it in a way they won't be able to in May, ukip will be concentrating on 20/30 seats.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
There's definitely self selection going on and it certainly make sense for it to be in favour of Nationalists, but the indie ref polling was out by 4 percentage points. The Scottish sub samples are out by 10+ compared to Scotland specific phone polling.
That's the Parris position, which he was reiterating again this morning: that the voters are simply wrong on some issues and need to be told so and why.
What he was also arguing was that pretending to "understand" a voter's concern when in fact you don't and/or don't agree with it, is the worst of all worlds. Better the first option - disagreeing openly - than patronising the voter in the way that the main political parties do. I think a lot of voters clearly sense the insincerity in the expressions of concern by the main parties over what bugs the average voter - hell I do - and now some of them have a choice which enables them to wave 2 fingers at those parties.
If the major parties came clean with what they actually stand for they will be lucky to win 25 % of the vote individually each. The reality is their position is that of a statist centralised establishment elite serving vested interests and in a democracy they will always lose.
Your assessment is wrong, but it suits your prejudices.
Would that be something like 'the dawning of the age of listening to and caring about ordinary people's concerns no matter how non-PC they might be"? I'm sure the left shudders in horror at the thought of actually responding to the hoi polloi's base views.
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
Andy Burnham was a hoot on WATO, all the problems are with the Tories all Labour has to do is listen a bit more
John Mann MP @JohnMannMP · 14h 14 hours ago Ed Miliband does a lot of listening. Now he needs to do a bit more hearing.
Bobajob is now feverishly Tweeting Mann to tell him he's wrong.
No that will be BigJohnOwls who thinks Mann's a troublemaker.
In other Scottish news SNP membership has just hit 80,000.
2500 new members a day since the referendum.
My back of the envelope calculation indicates that 80,000 Scots is the equivalent of almost a million UK adults when taken on an equivalent basis. Surely there must be some optimism that the SNP will do well at GE2015 -
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
Andy Burnham was a hoot on WATO, all the problems are with the Tories all Labour has to do is listen a bit more
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
All they're doing is putting on their "pretend to be listening/furrowed brow/occasional nods" face and it just makes me want to slap them - hard.
Labour won the by-election so they did better than the Tories but they have turned a safe seat into a marginal one. And that should worry them.
Labour have been thoroughly dishonest about immigration and still are. That dishonesty taints what otherwise might well be a worthwhile policy. If you want people to follow a course of action you need to be straight about what you're doing and why. And if you're in politics you have to accept that you are the servant of the voter and not - as Parris would have it - the other way round.
If you want to change the political weather then you have to go out and argue for your position - as Thatcher did. Neithe Milliband nor Cameron have done. Clegg did - on Europe (for which he earns some brownie points) - but lost the argument with the voters. And if you do lose the argument with the voters then you need to change your policies not find new ways to patronise the voters.
Labour may well win the GE but you cannot govern effectively if you've barely scraped over the line and if you have no real support for your policies when times get hard - as they will. If Burnham doesn't understand that then he's a fool.
That's the Parris position, which he was reiterating again this morning: that the voters are simply wrong on some issues and need to be told so and why.
What he was also arguing was that pretending to "understand" a voter's concern when in fact you don't and/or don't agree with it, is the worst of all worlds. Better the first option - disagreeing openly - than patronising the voter in the way that the main political parties do. I think a lot of voters clearly sense the insincerity in the expressions of concern by the main parties over what bugs the average voter - hell I do - and now some of them have a choice which enables them to wave 2 fingers at those parties.
The thing is, the author of that article is doing the same dishonesty. Take this line:
"If they think European Union membership has made immigration impossible to control, then vote Tory: only Cameron will grant a referendum in 2017."
Cameron of course doesn't support doing anything about EU immigration. He will seek some repatriation that he can claim does something about it (like no benefits for immigrants for six months) and then use it to try to fool as many voters as possible that the EU immigration issue has been addressed. Of course, if he wins the referendum based on a "fool the people some of the time" principle for six months, then we'll be back to where we started and people will just be angrier they were betrayed.
So that was the good news. What’s the bad news? Apparently we have lost the power of hearing.
But Ed is listening...
Well, this tactic certainly sounds familiar...
"So too was our response to Ukip raising the grooming and rape of young women in Rochdale. You could see we were outraged. But not by the rapes, instead by the fact the issue was raised. I’d have loved a Labour candidate who could say – ‘That’s right, it was disgusting. Those young women were betrayed. I want to be your MP to work with Simon Danczuk and Tom Watson to tackle historic abuse – and to make sure it never happens again’. The voice that David Blunkett would bring if he stood for South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner. The voice of working-class morality – and outrage – channelled politically to achieve change."
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
There's definitely self selection going on and it certainly make sense for it to be in favour of Nationalists, but the indie ref polling was out by 4 percentage points. The Scottish sub samples are out by 10+ compared to Scotland specific phone polling.
SNP still ahead of Labour in the Scottish subsample.
Subsample means bollocks all.
For Populus, sure - but with Yougov they produce so many that you can get meaningful data out of them by looking back at the last 10 and summing the figures or so.
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
As I mentioned a few days ago, I looked at some sub samples prior to the 2010 Election and SNP were as grossly over stated then as they are now. My real question is why are SNP so massively overstated in the sub-samples?
My theory is this that the online polling panels are disproportionately made up of SNP leaners, as effectively these panels are almost self selecting, unlike phone polls which are a bit more random.
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
There's definitely self selection going on and it certainly make sense for it to be in favour of Nationalists, but the indie ref polling was out by 4 percentage points. The Scottish sub samples are out by 10+ compared to Scotland specific phone polling.
What we really need is a Scottish Westminster election by-election.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Everything in the response of the two major parties and their media stooges today demonstrates they haven't learned a thing. They still have their heads firmly lodged in their nether regions!
Andy Burnham was a hoot on WATO, all the problems are with the Tories all Labour has to do is listen a bit more
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
All they're doing is putting on their "pretend to be listening/furrowed brow/occasional nods" face and it just makes me want to slap them - hard.
Labour won the by-election so they did better than the Tories but they have turned a safe seat into a marginal one. And that should worry them.
Labour have been thoroughly dishonest about immigration and still are. That dishonesty taints what otherwise might well be a worthwhile policy. If you want people to follow a course of action you need to be straight about what you're doing and why. And if you're in politics you have to accept that you are the servant of the voter and not - as Parris would have it - the other way round.
If you want to change the political weather then you have to go out and argue for your position - as Thatcher did. Neithe Milliband nor Cameron have done. Clegg did - on Europe (for which he earns some brownie points) - but lost the argument with the voters. And if you do lose the argument with the voters then you need to change your policies not find new ways to patronise the voters.
Labour may well win the GE but you cannot govern effectively if you've barely scraped over the line and if you have no real support for your policies when times get hard - as they will. If Burnham doesn't understand that then he's a fool.
Burnham has always been a fool.
And as for the rest of your post, I'm in full agreement. The currently lazy approach to try and scare people "The Tories\Ed" is simply self-defeating - at least as far as I'm concerned. let's see some policies meaningful to the country and politicians with the guts to implemement them.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 2m2 minutes ago McTernan on Labour/Rotherham: "we were outraged. But not by the rapes, instead by the fact the issue was raised"
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
You're just lying to have something to be outraged about. He said people with HIV were among the people that should not be allowed to immigrate, after the interviewer had previously raised the issue. He never said that affected their quality as a person. He also never equated them with murderers. Are Tories now so brain dead they can't understand English? Or is it just that you are now using the left-wing tactics you once bemoaned when used against Conservatives? You've sold your soul as a party, and it's only entitlement and smearing that's left.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
That's the Parris position, which he was reiterating again this morning: that the voters are simply wrong on some issues and need to be told so and why.
What he was also arguing was that pretending to "understand" a voter's concern when in fact you don't and/or don't agree with it, is the worst of all worlds. Better the first option - disagreeing openly - than patronising the voter in the way that the main political parties do. I think a lot of voters clearly sense the insincerity in the expressions of concern by the main parties over what bugs the average voter - hell I do - and now some of them have a choice which enables them to wave 2 fingers at those parties.
If the major parties came clean with what they actually stand for they will be lucky to win 25 % of the vote individually each. The reality is their position is that of a statist centralised establishment elite serving vested interests and in a democracy they will always lose.
Your assessment is wrong, but it suits your prejudices.
I and every other UKIP supporter here already know that a sad little Tory doormat like you thinks we are wrong and know you will dismiss us and smear us at every opportunity so unless you have anything intelligent to say (which with you particularly would be extremely novel) don't waste our time!
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
You're just lying to have something to be outraged about. He said people with HIV were among the people that should not be allowed to immigrate, after the interviewer had previously raised the issue. He never said that affected their quality as a person. He also never equated them with murderers. Are Tories now so brain dead they can't understand English? Or is it just that you are now using the left-wing tactics you once bemoaned when used against Conservatives? You've sold your soul as a party, and it's only entitlement and smearing that's left.
They've always aspired to be as nasty as Labour. That's what Theresa May's dog whistle was all about all those years ago!
In other Scottish news SNP membership has just hit 80,000.
2500 new members a day since the referendum.
My back of the envelope calculation indicates that 80,000 Scots is the equivalent of almost a million UK adults when taken on an equivalent basis. Surely there must be some optimism that the SNP will do well at GE2015 -
Labour: 36% (+3) Conservative: 15% (-2) SNP: 38% (nc) Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1) Another party (Net): 6% (-1)
I'm not suggesting for a minute they will get anywhere near Labour in seats, but I think 4 or 5 gains is perfectly possible !
If you're the SNP then, having lost the referendum vote, a perfectly sensible strategy is to maximise your representation at Westminster so you can extract the maximum concessions from the UK government in the event of a hung parliament.
Therefore, expect the lion's share of those new members willing to do groundwork to be used as foot soldiers in around 8-10 target seats in Scotland. I think quite a few will fall to the SNP.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Ok, that was your impression of Owen Jones, who else can you do?
You support Farage on HIV, or like the Nats do you only ever attack the messenger?
I haven't even heard the interview, and have never really thought about it.
My first instinct is that I wouldn't particularly lose sleep over people with contagious incurable diseases not being allowed to immigrate into the country, and that most people in the country would agree
The Tories didn't just lose theirs. They got utterly pulverised.
Net, Labour are more likely to win next year going by last night's result.
Yet the usual suspects are trying to spin it as terrible for Labour.
Gotta laugh.
Yes, I do have to laugh.
At the fact that you can't see how bad this was for Labour. The main opposition party nearly loses a very safe seat in a by-election - 7 months before the next General Election.
There is no way to spin that as being good for Labour. None at all.
The funniest pictures today was watching Ed Miliband go to Heywood make his speech and then get the hell out of Dodge just as fast as his state funded transport could carry him.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Ok, that was your impression of Owen Jones, who else can you do?
You support Farage on HIV, or like the Nats do you only ever attack the messenger?
I haven't even heard the interview, and have never really thought about it.
My first instinct is that I wouldn't particularly lose sleep over people with contagious incurable diseases not being allowed to immigrate into the country, and that most people in the country would agree
Mark Reckless doesn't:
Mark Reckless, said he did not believe there should be a blanket ban on people with HIV entering the country.
It is utter delusion. The economy IS healing. The debt IS lower. There ARE plenty of jobs and they DO pay enough. All problems CAN be solved by an EU referendum in 2017.
If you disagree you're obviously mad. So can be ignored. And not worried about - after all you WILL vote Tory when it comes down to it as things ARE better.......
The Tories didn't just lose theirs. They got utterly pulverised.
Net, Labour are more likely to win next year going by last night's result.
Yet the usual suspects are trying to spin it as terrible for Labour.
Gotta laugh.
Yes, I do have to laugh.
At the fact that you can't see how bad this was for Labour. The main opposition party nearly loses a very safe seat in a by-election - 7 months before the next General Election.
There is no way to spin that as being good for Labour. None at all.
So yes, the joke is on you.
Shhh. Labour's entitlement and complacency is your bestest friend.
The thing is, the author of that article is doing the same dishonesty. Take this line:
"If they think European Union membership has made immigration impossible to control, then vote Tory: only Cameron will grant a referendum in 2017."
Cameron of course doesn't support doing anything about EU immigration. He will seek some repatriation that he can claim does something about it (like no benefits for immigrants for six months) and then use it to try to fool as many voters as possible that the EU immigration issue has been addressed. Of course, if he wins the referendum based on a "fool the people some of the time" principle for six months, then we'll be back to where we started and people will just be angrier they were betrayed.
As usual (like many Kippers), you are enthusiastic to bandy around unfounded accusations of 'dishonesty'. It's an extremely unpleasant characteristic.
In this case, it's also bonkers. Cameron WILL hold a referendum in 2017, if he is PM. Therefore, the line you quote is the absolute opposite of a lie: it is the plain, unvarnished truth.
If there is a referendum, then the voters will decide. Immigration will no doubt be a significant issue in that referendum.
No doubt the Out side will attempt to claim that, if we leave, we'll have full control over immigration and not have to concede anything at all on free movement of labour to get the trade deal with the EU. We can discuss the validity of that point as and when it arises, but, without a referendum (and therefore, by extension, without a Tory government) it won't arise. We'll be locked in to the existing arrangement.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Ok, that was your impression of Owen Jones, who else can you do?
You support Farage on HIV, or like the Nats do you only ever attack the messenger?
I haven't even heard the interview, and have never really thought about it.
My first instinct is that I wouldn't particularly lose sleep over people with contagious incurable diseases not being allowed to immigrate into the country, and that most people in the country would agree
Mark Reckless doesn't:
Mark Reckless, said he did not believe there should be a blanket ban on people with HIV entering the country.
The Tories didn't just lose theirs. They got utterly pulverised.
Net, Labour are more likely to win next year going by last night's result.
Yet the usual suspects are trying to spin it as terrible for Labour.
Gotta laugh.
Yes, I do have to laugh.
At the fact that you can't see how bad this was for Labour. The main opposition party nearly loses a very safe seat in a by-election - 7 months before the next General Election.
There is no way to spin that as being good for Labour. None at all.
So yes, the joke is on you.
Shhh. Labour's entitlement and complacency is your bestest friend.
In other Scottish news SNP membership has just hit 80,000.
2500 new members a day since the referendum.
My back of the envelope calculation indicates that 80,000 Scots is the equivalent of almost a million UK adults when taken on an equivalent basis. Surely there must be some optimism that the SNP will do well at GE2015 -
Labour: 36% (+3) Conservative: 15% (-2) SNP: 38% (nc) Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1) Another party (Net): 6% (-1)
I'm not suggesting for a minute they will get anywhere near Labour in seats, but I think 4 or 5 gains is perfectly possible !
If you're the SNP then, having lost the referendum vote, a perfectly sensible strategy is to maximise your representation at Westminster so you can extract the maximum concessions from the UK government in the event of a hung parliament.
Therefore, expect the lion's share of those new members willing to do groundwork to be used as foot soldiers in around 8-10 target seats in Scotland. I think quite a few will fall to the SNP.
Dundee West odds on SNP are a gift.
It's all about what percentage of the new members are directionless angry people lashing out in a very middle class but impotent way ("Grr, I've got to do something I'll join a political party!") and what percentage will be willing to burn the shoe leather to do the canvassing and post the envelopes. How many are appreciating the long game.
It might be very deflating for these new members to get votes wise spectacular results (like 7%+ swings turning generational safe seats into marginals for the next election) but not actually knock over that many Labour seats and fail to see what they've achieved and thus walk away in a years time.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It was Farage:
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
Then why did he mention them immediately after murderers?
Because he was asked who shouldn't come to the country, and he said the group of people that most came to mind ("murderers") followed by the group that the interviewer had just asked about ("people with HIV").
Spin, spin spin......Farage introduced 'people with HIV' in one of his earlier interviews.....
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
Have you considered the possibility that there isn't a lot more they can do, that they are not doing already?
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
Anthony is of course absolutely right to remind us why by elections are a strange animal. I've heard much about how the combined results showed a swing from LAB to CON of 7.6%. Applied nationally, the changes in those combined results would put Labour 8 points ahead of the Conservatives. But it would also show UKIP on 51% and heading for a landslide next May...
Last night I tweeted that I wouldn't be staying up because:
twitter.com/NCruncherUK/status/520263516012675072
In the event, I did stay up and we got all three.
In H&M, the Labour share was 8 points lower and UKIP 8 points higher than the polls had it:
That is huge. In the 1992 general election, the overall error in opinion polling was something in the order of 9 points - this is roughly double that. Why were the pollsters fairly accurate in one contest between UKIP and a 'big two' party, but the same two pollsters so wrong in another? It is possible that there might be a Carswell effect, a turnout effect, or maybe a difference in sampling bias between these two equal and opposite seats. More on polling to follow.
For the anoraks: The swing Douglas Carswell achieved from himself (in different colours) was 44.1%. This is, of course, astonishing, but Simon Hughes, who was a Sky News Pundit last night, holds on to his 1983 record swing of 44.2% - Carswell would have needed just 112 more votes to beat it. He should have demanded a recount!
I'm currently writing a detailed piece on polling, to be published soon.
The Tories didn't just lose theirs. They got utterly pulverised.
Net, Labour are more likely to win next year going by last night's result.
Yet the usual suspects are trying to spin it as terrible for Labour.
Gotta laugh.
I wouldn't laugh too much. For the time being UKIP don't reckon they can actively shift much more Tory vote directly to them but they do reckon they can shift Labour vote and anti-labour vote in Labour seats to them. I reckon there could be 5 perhaps up to 10 percentage points of Labour vote share out there that is available to be plundered and you know what Miliband is such a misfit its there for the taking.....
Comments
https://electmps-ukip.nationbuilder.com/elect_ukip_mps
Anyone familiar with the ‘Waterloo Blackpool’ area and know what might account for this unpleasant reappearance?
As one senior moderniser told me recently: “We have to respect these people. But we must not change our policy to go nearer to where they are.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11151491/Clacton-by-election-The-Tories-cannot-fight-for-leafy-areas-and-forget-the-poor.html
And by my (And Electoral Calculus) calculations the SNP are ahead of Labour in Scotland which is just as meteoric as what UKIP are achieving in England.
All the focus on targeting by Lab/Con HQ means they ignore large areas and groups on the assumption that these are someone's core vote.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/podcast-special/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/ukips-assault-is-hitting-labours-core-vote-all-bets-are-off-at-the-general-election/
I've got a thread on Scottish sub samples coming up in the next week.
You may be surprised.
When Douglas Carswell arrived at the pub at about 330am he thanked a few party campaigners and then particularly heaped praised on Nigel Farage saying that the six weeks of smearing etc he faced since joining UKIP were nothing compared to the 20 years of it Farage has had, how unfair that smearing was, and that he couldn't praise him enough
Anyone thinking Carswell is a Tory on holiday only need watch his conversation with Greg Hands on This Week, wishful thinking
What he was also arguing was that pretending to "understand" a voter's concern when in fact you don't and/or don't agree with it, is the worst of all worlds. Better the first option - disagreeing openly - than patronising the voter in the way that the main political parties do. I think a lot of voters clearly sense the insincerity in the expressions of concern by the main parties over what bugs the average voter - hell I do - and now some of them have a choice which enables them to wave 2 fingers at those parties.
Just a reminder that P3 is at 9am tomorrow, a little earlier than usual, so the pre-qualifying piece will probably be a touch earlier too.
Labour will have the most seats, the SNP the most votes I think !
2500 new members a day since the referendum.
I read on another thread that Farage wants to stop immigrants with HIV entering the UK (or was that one of his accolytes. He wants to stop them altogether).
It's the dawning of the age of Socrates.
What a horrible thought
My evidence for this
1) Two out the three most accurate pollsters in the indyref were phone pollsters
2) Last year, Panelbase shut its polls to new members amid speculation about an "organised sign-up of Yes campaigners" trying to influence the outcome.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/new-recruits-banned-by-panelbase-from-indyref-polls.1378556935
As somebody very close to the ground and action the abuse we receive can be vile, Nigel has the utmost respect in the party for the way he's handled it for 20 years, Douglas is clearly impressed.
The Union is secure, they can worry about other things for the next few months
Are women really so stupid as to believe this crap ?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/10/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-women-dont-ask-for-a-raise
Farage seems a really nice guy with no hairs and graces.. It was his idea to go to the roughest part of town and knock on doors... (although maybe he shouldve beeen in Manchester?)
I can see why those who support other parties are looking for fractures in the dynamic, but as a kipper I couldn't have wished for any other MP than Carswell, I think he is perfect for the party... allow us our moment!
The celebration as the results came in was different class, it really was like being with a load of mates watching your team in the cup final.. really feels like something happening
Also at 39 I was definitely not one of the young crowd. I would say 20-25% of people there were under 30
Rochester next, come along!
Ed Miliband does a lot of listening. Now he needs to do a bit more hearing.
These by elections have seen the major parties throw resources at it in a way they won't be able to in May, ukip will be concentrating on 20/30 seats.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2014/10/10/for-fox-sake/
So that was the good news. What’s the bad news? Apparently we have lost the power of hearing.
But Ed is listening...
Surely there must be some optimism that the SNP will do well at GE2015 -
http://survation.com/new-scottish-voting-intention-polling-for-daily-record-dundee-university-and-better-nation/
Westminster vote (May 2015):
Labour: 36% (+3)
Conservative: 15% (-2)
SNP: 38% (nc)
Liberal Democrat: 5% (-1)
Another party (Net): 6% (-1)
I'm not suggesting for a minute they will get anywhere near Labour in seats, but I think 4 or 5 gains is perfectly possible !
Can we expect a barrage of 'McTernan's wrong too'?
All they're doing is putting on their "pretend to be listening/furrowed brow/occasional nods" face and it just makes me want to slap them - hard.
Labour won the by-election so they did better than the Tories but they have turned a safe seat into a marginal one. And that should worry them.
Labour have been thoroughly dishonest about immigration and still are. That dishonesty taints what otherwise might well be a worthwhile policy. If you want people to follow a course of action you need to be straight about what you're doing and why. And if you're in politics you have to accept that you are the servant of the voter and not - as Parris would have it - the other way round.
If you want to change the political weather then you have to go out and argue for your position - as Thatcher did. Neithe Milliband nor Cameron have done. Clegg did - on Europe (for which he earns some brownie points) - but lost the argument with the voters. And if you do lose the argument with the voters then you need to change your policies not find new ways to patronise the voters.
Labour may well win the GE but you cannot govern effectively if you've barely scraped over the line and if you have no real support for your policies when times get hard - as they will. If Burnham doesn't understand that then he's a fool.
"If they think European Union membership has made immigration impossible to control, then vote Tory: only Cameron will grant a referendum in 2017."
Cameron of course doesn't support doing anything about EU immigration. He will seek some repatriation that he can claim does something about it (like no benefits for immigrants for six months) and then use it to try to fool as many voters as possible that the EU immigration issue has been addressed. Of course, if he wins the referendum based on a "fool the people some of the time" principle for six months, then we'll be back to where we started and people will just be angrier they were betrayed.
"So too was our response to Ukip raising the grooming and rape of young women in Rochdale. You could see we were outraged. But not by the rapes, instead by the fact the issue was raised. I’d have loved a Labour candidate who could say – ‘That’s right, it was disgusting. Those young women were betrayed. I want to be your MP to work with Simon Danczuk and Tom Watson to tackle historic abuse – and to make sure it never happens again’. The voice that David Blunkett would bring if he stood for South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner. The voice of working-class morality – and outrage – channelled politically to achieve change."
Can't find any of that around :O)
We should get an Ipsos-Mori Scotland phone poll in the next month as well.
The UKIP leader then went on to define what he meant by "quality".
"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here. Yes and people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start.
murderers and HIV people - well.....pretty much the same thing, aren't they?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29565766
And as for the rest of your post, I'm in full agreement. The currently lazy approach to try and scare people "The Tories\Ed" is simply self-defeating - at least as far as I'm concerned. let's see some policies meaningful to the country and politicians with the guts to implemement them.
I have a fair few Scottish bets (Mostly the Lib Dems getting thumped)
McTernan on Labour/Rotherham: "we were outraged. But not by the rapes, instead by the fact the issue was raised"
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2014/10/10/for-fox-sake/
UKIP = ABL.
Therefore, expect the lion's share of those new members willing to do groundwork to be used as foot soldiers in around 8-10 target seats in Scotland. I think quite a few will fall to the SNP.
Dundee West odds on SNP are a gift.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGo32RICjk8
The Tories didn't just lose theirs. They got utterly pulverised.
Net, Labour are more likely to win next year going by last night's result.
Yet the usual suspects are trying to spin it as terrible for Labour.
Gotta laugh.
My first instinct is that I wouldn't particularly lose sleep over people with contagious incurable diseases not being allowed to immigrate into the country, and that most people in the country would agree
At the fact that you can't see how bad this was for Labour. The main opposition party nearly loses a very safe seat in a by-election - 7 months before the next General Election.
There is no way to spin that as being good for Labour. None at all.
So yes, the joke is on you.
Run away Mr. Ed you coward!
http://www.joe.ie/football/obscure-90s-cult-striker-dele-adebola-may-have-just-tweeted-the-best-message-ever/471361
Mark Reckless, said he did not believe there should be a blanket ban on people with HIV entering the country.
If you disagree you're obviously mad. So can be ignored. And not worried about - after all you WILL vote Tory when it comes down to it as things ARE better.......
In this case, it's also bonkers. Cameron WILL hold a referendum in 2017, if he is PM. Therefore, the line you quote is the absolute opposite of a lie: it is the plain, unvarnished truth.
If there is a referendum, then the voters will decide. Immigration will no doubt be a significant issue in that referendum.
No doubt the Out side will attempt to claim that, if we leave, we'll have full control over immigration and not have to concede anything at all on free movement of labour to get the trade deal with the EU. We can discuss the validity of that point as and when it arises, but, without a referendum (and therefore, by extension, without a Tory government) it won't arise. We'll be locked in to the existing arrangement.
It might be very deflating for these new members to get votes wise spectacular results (like 7%+ swings turning generational safe seats into marginals for the next election) but not actually knock over that many Labour seats and fail to see what they've achieved and thus walk away in a years time.
This says it best:
The Terrence Higgins Trust said the UKIP leader's remarks displayed a "new level of ignorance".
"The idea that having HIV should be used as a black mark against someone's name is ridiculous and shows an outrageous lack of understanding of the issue," the charity's chief executive Rosemary Gillespie said.
"In bracketing those living with the condition with murderers, and suggesting there is no place for them in his vision of Britain, Mr Farage has stooped to a new level of ignorance. He should be truly ashamed," she added.
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
Last night I tweeted that I wouldn't be staying up because:
twitter.com/NCruncherUK/status/520263516012675072
In the event, I did stay up and we got all three.
In H&M, the Labour share was 8 points lower and UKIP 8 points higher than the polls had it:
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/by-elections-and-polls-and-simon-hughes.html#more
That is huge. In the 1992 general election, the overall error in opinion polling was something in the order of 9 points - this is roughly double that. Why were the pollsters fairly accurate in one contest between UKIP and a 'big two' party, but the same two pollsters so wrong in another? It is possible that there might be a Carswell effect, a turnout effect, or maybe a difference in sampling bias between these two equal and opposite seats. More on polling to follow.
For the anoraks: The swing Douglas Carswell achieved from himself (in different colours) was 44.1%. This is, of course, astonishing, but Simon Hughes, who was a Sky News Pundit last night, holds on to his 1983 record swing of 44.2% - Carswell would have needed just 112 more votes to beat it. He should have demanded a recount!
I'm currently writing a detailed piece on polling, to be published soon.