Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Ed Miliband wasn’t polling so badly then what’ll happen

13

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.

    Who says stop immigration?

    This is one if the great strawman arguments

    If bingeing on junk food has made you unhealthy, the answer is not starvation, it is a balanced, varied but controlled diet

    That is what Ukip offer.

    The pro eu parties are bingers, the bnp are bulimics... Ukip are the only moderates
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    kle4 said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damagn made and there are other drivers reinforcing it.
    Thcounts for the Conservatives continued relevance. ...
    I agtial building block of society.
    ained.
    Nonsense. Marriage is about two people who love each other committing to that relationship for life.

    Those who think it's about procreation should consider whether it ought also to be banned for women over 45, those who've had operations rendering them infertile, and the like.
    Not that I care, but fringe counter-examples like that don't really alter the anthropological background which is that marriage in all societies and all languages has always meant the kind of heterosexual relationship which produces legitimate offspring. (This is circular, because "legitimate" means "offspring of married parents" but don't blame me, blame Ugg the caveman who invented the system). So calling gay marriage, marriage is a bit like legislating that all cats are dogs: it don't make it so.

    Sure it does. We redefine ho only wish to focus on procreational aspects, and 'other marriage' for people who marry for other reasons. We can refer to the umbrella term for legal purposes, and everyone else is free to define their type as the one true type as much as they want, like sects of the same religion. To tie it in to your cats and dogs example, legal marriage, which governments have always interfered with, can be 'mammals', and then we can subdivide down.

    You also seem to ignore those people who marry but are unable to conceive despite being heterosexual, and in this day and age may be fully aware of that fact before they marry, or those who just don't want kids, and are telling these hetero couples they are not proper marriages either, but we'll let that go for now I guess.
    No, I have already said that isolated counter-examples don't alter generalities.

    If it is important to people that cats should be called dogs, that is fine by me. What I object to is time-wasting w**kerdom (for which reason I would object exactly as much to an attempt to reverse the legislation as I do to the time wasted passing it), and having my objection to time-wasting w**kerdom reclassified as homophobia by the hard of thinking.



  • rogerh said:

    Alanbrooke, the “shock” is that this is happening and the Government keeps insisting that everything’s getting better.

    No wonder Kippers, for many of whom life isn’t what it was when they were young, don’t feel any recovery.

    Life has been difficult for most of this century for ordinary people in the private sector, this isn't just a 2010 issue. Wages were stagnant under Blair and Trades Unions just shut up and took the money. Hardly a just a coalition issue.
    Have yet to see any of the parties tackling the issue of the widening gap between rich and poor.This has contributed to the "feel bad" factor associated with falling living standards for a large part of the population.

    As discussed on here ad nauseum - a society in which only a small minority enjoys on-going improvements to its living standards is not a sustainable one. There has never been more wealth in the UK, the issue is how it is distributed.

  • surbiton said:

    UKIP on 37% in Southern England is an exaggeration. However, that they are in 30+ territory NOW is believable.

    Does that mean that in some SE London seats, swings could actually make Labour win through the middle.

    UKIP is usually understated, while Labour is generally overstated. We'll see soon enough if that's true in the 2015 GE.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 11m11 minutes ago
    Meanwhile, Thurrock's ex-Lab MP Andrew Mackinlay says EdM is a 'disaster'. Labour PCC happens to be ex-EdM aide @ThurrockPolly

    Are the knives ready for Ed?
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @taffys
    Voters like to have simple messages, and usually the more favoured of these, is pointing to a "cause" that absolves them of any blame.
    Britain is tearing itself apart instead of rationally trying to fix what is wrong.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited October 2014
    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    edited October 2014
    Taffys Depends if stopping immigration becomes a global trend. Marine Le Pen leading French polls is anti immigration, Sweden Democrats hold balance of power there, Abbott in Australia likewise wants to 'stop the boats', the Tea Party wants a border fence with Mexico, even Modi in India wants less immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    saddened said:

    Ninoinoz said:

    DavidL said:

    The reference to Jan Moir on this subject reminded me of Tim Minchin's song 5 poofs and 2 pianos which includes the lyrics:

    "the Daily Mail will bring the big guns out
    Jan Moir will be frothing at the mouth.
    writing further brilliant stuff about
    the myth of being both happy and gay."

    It is a very funny song highlighting the absurdity of those who choose to discriminate in this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIm8WgwkTeI

    Gay marriage was something that is inevitably a part of a civilised society and, the odd flood apart, there is no evidence whatsoever that marriage or the structure of society has been anything other than strengthened by it. You keep kinda hoping this is a debate that is over but apparently not.

    Wow! Another person who thinks babies are delivered by storks!

    Rather less cretinously, immigration is another source of population replacement, but again left curiously unmentioned despite it being the salient political issue of the week.

    Politicians think of the next election, statesmen think of the next generation.

    Cameron thinks of neither.
    As for marriage being solely for the production of children, where does that leave people who are unable to have children or use contraception? Should they be banned from marriage.
    Feel free to campaign for it if you like.

    And, yes, I have noticed that the gay rights movement only got going when cheap and reliable contraception was introduced in the Sixties.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    And most of the 7000 posts have been calling people a Turnip or worse ;-)
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    This is one if the great strawman arguments

    Controlling immigration, reducing immigration, filtering immigration, optimising the immigrant intake, call it what you want.

    It may well not drive up wages.
  • Lots of discussion on gay "marriage" I see this morning.

    I think it is connected with the mere 10% of UKIP supporters who are satisfied with David Cameron. It really is personal. They simply don't trust him (neither do I, though I remain in the Conservative party) and when he stated clearly to Adam Boulton 2 days before the 2010 election that he wouldn't be introducing gay "marriage", who can blame them.

    I think the portion of the UKIP vote that has defected from the Conservatives will prove stickier than in the past and Tories will only recover perhaps less than half of UKIP's Tory defectors come next May.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.


    The failure to tackle immigration honestly has put us where we are.
    There is a story to tell, eg, an ageing population needs immigration (but is this a Ponzi scheme?), etc.

    Instead we are told immigration is unabashedly good for us. With no explanation as to why. We are told it brings a higher tax yield (ignoring the dichotomy between EU and Third World immigration effects). We are told diversity is good - with no explanation as to why, apart from the cuisine. We are told we cannot do anything about immigration as we are in the EU, ignoring it is non EU immigration which produces jihadis and calls for sharia law.

    The killer being of course anyone questioning immigration is racist and bigoted. It used to close debate. Happily, it doesn't seem to any more.

  • malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    And most of the 7000 posts have been calling people a Turnip or worse ;-)

    I find it hard to believe there are worse insults than Turnip.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    And most of the 7000 posts have been calling people a Turnip or worse ;-)

    I find it hard to believe there are worse insults than Turnip.

    What if you're Swedish?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    taffys said:

    Does that mean that in some SE London seats, swings could actually make Labour win through the middle.

    I heard that claimed about Rochester the other day.

    It ain't gonna happen tho'

    I can imagine some LD/Con marginals being won by Labour from 2010-third place.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,014

    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

    True, but that does not undermine the point. Ex Tories are a significant source of support for UKIP, many driven by some of the issues discussed this morning and the damage to the Tories has been modest at worst. In fact for a government in difficult economic times it is remarkable how support for the Tories has stood up. Being deep into the 20s at some point in this Parliament really should have been expected.

    The combined Tory and UKIP scores is in one sense meaningless but in another truly remarkable suggesting a much larger section of centre right support in this country than is usually thought to be the case.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Whilst I'd love to believe this could be true, I feel that we're in a really rough political sea - and no one is *winning here*.

    The Kippers may suck those with more socially conservative/populist views away from the Tories [and Labour], however that's just a temporary phenomenon IMO. When they aren't so angry any more, it'll just go back to the way it was. Us vs Them. Them is just a moving feast.

    The politically disaffected will still be there, and continue to vote Kipper instead of LD. The Kippers appeal is that they aren't nicely varnished like the LDs. However, I suspect that the Kippers hankering for power will undo them even more rapidly than the Yellow Peril = precisely because they're so anti-Establishment.

    The SNPs enormous surge in members is a fascinating by-product of No, and mirrored to some extent by the Kippers. How did the SNP make the transition from being Us to Them and remain so popular? The LDs have failed in Westminister by continuing to be Not Them which isn't anything.
    DavidL said:

    The test for Cameron is whether he can gain more votes in the centre than he is going to lose on the fringes to UKIP. I personally believe that UKIP has the ability to detoxify the Tories better than anything else but I accept this is guided by my own personal preferences.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @Plato you are correct about DC - am amazed how many on PB who have never met him or had a long private conversation with him can pontificate if they way that they do. He is very much a delegator and at his best in times of crisis - now the UK needs more of his character as shown in his times of Cameron Direct before the 2010 GE.

    A coalition was the worst outcome for the UK when a time of strong and direct leadership was required, not one shared with the populist seeking and idealist LDs. This prevented a more rapid elimination of the deficit and so a reduction of the debt. It also prevented more radical moves against immigration, the effects of ECHR and Green energy taxes.

    2015 is almost too late to correct the economic pofligacy brought in by GB and the UK and the rest of the EU are in line for severe economic shocks during the next five years that could have been mitigated by a more economic-correcting HMG in 2010.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    No, the kind of abuse malcolmg has posted here, and on other occasions, is not within the bounds of PB convention. And I say that as someone who's been posting on here since about 2006 and has acted as a moderator at times (though not now).
  • ZenPaganZenPagan Posts: 689
    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.

    Immigration globalises wages for most of us. For example I have a job (software engineer writing in C, C++ and C#) which we are constantly told there is a skill shortage for. It is noticeable that when I was looking for a new job in the years 2002,2007 and 2013 that the wages on offer have not significantly changed the going rate on the job boards in all those years for someone of my experience being around the 38 to 45k band depending on location.

    At the same time my colleagues became a much more mixed bag internationally than was previously the case.

    Having said that I personally am not against immigration, what annoys the hell out of me though is that my wages have been "globalised" but the prices of goods haven't. Companies have been protected from globalisation for their goods. Here is an example

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jul/31/tesco

    If you can hire people from anywhere to keep wages down then I as a consumer should be able to buy goods from anywhere to keep my cost of living down as well. If this were the case my living standards wouldn't have dropped by nearly as much.

    The EU is a protectionist monster that prevents the globalisation of prices while shafting the man on the street for wages. This is why sugar within the EU costs 630£ a ton but can be bought on the world market for 250£ a ton

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited October 2014
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

    True, but that does not undermine the point. Ex Tories are a significant source of support for UKIP, many driven by some of the issues discussed this morning and the damage to the Tories has been modest at worst. In fact for a government in difficult economic times it is remarkable how support for the Tories has stood up. Being deep into the 20s at some point in this Parliament really should have been expected.

    The combined Tory and UKIP scores is in one sense meaningless but in another truly remarkable suggesting a much larger section of centre right support in this country than is usually thought to be the case.
    The short-term damage to the Tories of the dominace of the Cameron-Parris faction has been the loss of 5-8 points, and any realistic hope of winning in 2015. Surely that's enough?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    liarpoliticians ‏@liarpoliticians 48m48 minutes ago
    Gordon Brown "I believe Ed Miliband wants to concentrate on big issues"... don't worry, May 2015 Ed will be selling The Big Issue #murnaghan
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    MikeK said:

    Morning all.

    To add to Ed’s woes – “Now Ed Miliband has the 'women problem’ as a PM”

    After last night’s mixed polling results, his 35% strategy is looking a bit shaky too.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11156102/Now-Ed-Miliband-has-the-women-problem-as-a-PM.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    " The Labour leader is now half as popular, as a potential premier, as Gordon Brown, his predecessor, was when the same question was asked in 2009. "

    It seems likely that EdM will underperform Brown and maybe even Foot. Labour will be closer to 25% than 35% in the GE unless they find a way of ridding themselves of the dud.
    Con 35, Lab 25, UKIP 23. SNP more votes than the Lib Dems in all seats.

    Labour needs a postman, quick!
    to late now, for good or bad Labour go to the election with Milliband.

    For those of us worried about another Labour cluster f**k government that is good news... for Labour supporters that probably isn't great news :-)
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    taffys said:

    This is one if the great strawman arguments

    Controlling immigration, reducing immigration, filtering immigration, optimising the immigrant intake, call it what you want.

    It may well not drive up wages.

    It will address one of the factors driving (low skilled) wages down.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    No, the kind of abuse malcolmg has posted here, and on other occasions, is not within the bounds of PB convention. And I say that as someone who's been posting on here since about 2006 and has acted as a moderator at times (though not now).
    I mean really David ?

    Some of tim and Seans posts are well beyond malc calling someone pompous.
  • Plato said:

    Whilst I'd love to believe this could be true, I feel that we're in a really rough political sea - and no one is *winning here*.

    The Kippers may suck those with more socially conservative/populist views away from the Tories [and Labour], however that's just a temporary phenomenon IMO. When they aren't so angry any more, it'll just go back to the way it was. Us vs Them. Them is just a moving feast.

    The politically disaffected will still be there, and continue to vote Kipper instead of LD. The Kippers appeal is that they aren't nicely varnished like the LDs. However, I suspect that the Kippers hankering for power will undo them even more rapidly than the Yellow Peril = precisely because they're so anti-Establishment.

    The SNPs enormous surge in members is a fascinating by-product of No, and mirrored to some extent by the Kippers. How did the SNP make the transition from being Us to Them and remain so popular? The LDs have failed in Westminister by continuing to be Not Them which isn't anything.

    DavidL said:

    The test for Cameron is whether he can gain more votes in the centre than he is going to lose on the fringes to UKIP. I personally believe that UKIP has the ability to detoxify the Tories better than anything else but I accept this is guided by my own personal preferences.

    Parties whose main message is that it is all someone else's fault are hard to fight. For UKIP's Metropolitan Elite read the SNP's Westminster. What'll do for UKIP is some real power. What'll do for the SNP is a constant refighting of a battle that was lost. It'll take time though.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    It is interesting that the UKIP surge in H&M is not reflected in the polls in strong Labour areas which include the North . Does this mean that all this support came from previous NOTA?
  • isam said:

    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.

    Who says stop immigration?

    This is one if the great strawman arguments

    If bingeing on junk food has made you unhealthy, the answer is not starvation, it is a balanced, varied but controlled diet

    That is what Ukip offer.

    The pro eu parties are bingers, the bnp are bulimics... Ukip are the only moderates
    Nice analogy :)
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Chukka speaking rubbish as usual.
    Europe and immigration has nothing to do with housing, NHS waiting lists and wages.

    Except of course it does. Increased immigration puts pressure on housing (raising prices), NHS (more people accessing) and wages (driving down wages).

    Soft ball interview form Sky, plenty of talk on EU immigration. What about Third World immigration.
  • Wow. Pointing out that Gay Marriage was the catalyst for UKIPs rise has really hit raw nerves which suggests that there is truth to it.

    A few observations:

    Young people have always been more liberal than older people. So the idea that people with conservative views are elderly bigots who will die off is a fallacy. People get more conservative as they get older.

    We are not producing enough children so we are accepting large numbers of immigrants from socially conservative countries. My wife is African and we have more than 3 children. Do the maths.

    UKIP are not stupid enough to campaign on abolishing gay marriage. There is far too powerful a hostile lobby to take that one on. In 20 years time when the country has been dragged away from the left then that policy may come, especially given the above re immigration.

    Shouting racism or homophobia at your opponent for expressing mild and reasoned opposition to your views Is an unpleasant form of bullying and increasingly dosen't work anymore.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That really needed a Monty Python sketch - they're a deadly weapon in the right hands ;^ )

    chestnut said:

    With Ed, his own party didn't really want him, but he got the gig.

    The public think he's hopeless, but he's still there.

    Does that mean he's lucky, or that Cameron, Clegg, Salmond and Farage are?

    It means the unions felt they could could own him more than his brother.

    I have to say, it is probably the biggest mystery to me in modern politics - how in the name of everything holy did holding up a banana kill off David Miliband as a serious politician? The media seemed fine with him wandering around as our most dangerously embarrassing Foreign Secretary, like a grenade with the pin out. Secret rendition flights. All that.

    But then he holds up a soft fruit - and his world collapses.

    Who would be a politician?

  • malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    And most of the 7000 posts have been calling people a Turnip or worse ;-)

    I find it hard to believe there are worse insults than Turnip.

    What if you're Swedish?
    Euro 1992 footy:
    "Swedes 2 - Turnips 0"

    :)
  • Hope everyone's aware that in terms of aggregate vote-share at the 18 GB by-elections this Parliament, UKIP are only 0.5% behind the Tories...
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312

    Interesting that you should reference Uncle Tom, because the difference between civil partnerships for gays and marriage for straight couple struck me as much more akin to the "equal but different" apartheid policies of Jim Crow-era southern states.

    Indeed, my objection (on the basis that I like things to be tidy) would be that there are now three "marriage type" statuses, all with slightly different rules. I would prefer to have revised the marriage laws so they can be applicable to everyone (probably the current gay marriage rules) and then apply to everyone. CP should either be abolished or made available to straight couples.

    But that's just a quibble. For my generation (I am 49) I would guess that most of us are fairly liberal on sexual issues and are happy to let people get on with their lives. If they want to be married, what is the problem? What someone else does doesn't affect your own relationship, unless you believe in sympathetic magic.

  • Financier said:

    It is interesting that the UKIP surge in H&M is not reflected in the polls in strong Labour areas which include the North . Does this mean that all this support came from previous NOTA?

    A lot of Labour voters stayed at home. That's why opinion polls flatter to deceive, especially internet ones. EdM is a huge liability personally and his leadership generally - or lack of it - has meant Labour has spent four years failing to make itself relevant, credible and electable.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h
  • O/T
    Is anyone else experiencing settlement problems with Paddy Power?
    I'm still waiting for them to pay out on my winning bet on Tory Lead YouGov VI Poll in H2 2014 which was reported on 3 Oct, despite my having chased them on this, so far without success, a couple of days ago ..... not good.
    Very happy to take your money, less keen on repaying it apparently!
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited October 2014



    Interesting that you should reference Uncle Tom, because the difference between civil partnerships for gays and marriage for straight couple struck me as much more akin to the "equal but different" apartheid policies of Jim Crow-era southern states.

    Blimey, you are getting as desperate.

    Miscegenation laws were brought in precisely to stop mixed-race children being produced, or rather black people becoming slave-owners by inheritance and undermining the slave-owning society.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Plato said:

    That really needed a Monty Python sketch - they're a deadly weapon in the right hands ;^ )

    chestnut said:

    With Ed, his own party didn't really want him, but he got the gig.

    The public think he's hopeless, but he's still there.

    Does that mean he's lucky, or that Cameron, Clegg, Salmond and Farage are?

    It means the unions felt they could could own him more than his brother.

    I have to say, it is probably the biggest mystery to me in modern politics - how in the name of everything holy did holding up a banana kill off David Miliband as a serious politician? The media seemed fine with him wandering around as our most dangerously embarrassing Foreign Secretary, like a grenade with the pin out. Secret rendition flights. All that.

    But then he holds up a soft fruit - and his world collapses.

    Who would be a politician?

    http://www.youtube.com
    /watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

    How to defend yourself against a banana.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    And cause Ebola
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    edited October 2014

    malcolmg said:

    isam said:

    FalseFlag said:

    matt said:

    The tombstone of the Conservative Party will read:

    LISBON REFERENDUM GAY MARRIAGE

    Eh? How do you work that out?
    I disagree with Paul's hyperbole but the fundamental point is right: gay marriage did a lot of damage to the Tory Party's support.

    I have to say, I was shocked, saddened and surprised by that outcome, which was way beyond what I'd expecr drivers reinforcing it.
    The reaction is surprising in that continued relevance. ...
    I agree. I supported the cociety.
    Homosexual 'relationships' are the antithesis of what marriage is about as the courageous Jan Moir explained.
    Please keep you ill-informed and bigoted views about homosexuality to yourself. You keep spreading your hatred - and it is not welcome or appropriate.
    Freedom of speech?

    You have just showed exactly what is meant by liberal bigotry
    Homophobia has no place in modern society and I will continue to call out people who express it.
    Pompous stuck up twat, go get a life
    Do you have to come on here just to be so rude? His point about homophobia was perfectly reasonable and did not warrant such a foul-mouthed response from you. This site is normally a great online debating chamber, free from the sort of trolling that fills other places.

    Flame me now if you like too but try and be civilised on here for everyone's sake.
    I notice malc has 7000 posts and you have 400. I suspect he has a much better view of what has and hasn't been PB convention over the years; I also suspect he's had a lot more personal abuse than most posters but takes it as it comes along without complaint and often good humour.
    No, the kind of abuse malcolmg has posted here, and on other occasions, is not within the bounds of PB convention. And I say that as someone who's been posting on here since about 2006 and has acted as a moderator at times (though not now).
    I mean really David ?

    Some of tim and Seans posts are well beyond malc calling someone pompous.
    tim and Sean got moderated too. That said, they usually manage/d to insult people with a touch of humour, which takes the edge off it.

    In any case, 'pompous' wasn't the offending word in malcolmg's post.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Health care worker in Texas tests positive for ebola.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29587803
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited October 2014
    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    It baffles me that Chuka Umunna is considered one of Labour's better MPs. Are the rest of them rubbish?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    A lot of Labour voters stayed at home.

    That is why, for me, labour on 36% in the polls is not as significant as some claim. At recent elections, labour have simply failed to punch their weight.

    And they will do so again in Rochester.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,771
    @logical_song
    "What if you're Swedish?"
    Rutabaga
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @geoffw

    Don't be so stupid you manglewurzel ;-)
  • taffys said:

    A lot of Labour voters stayed at home.

    That is why, for me, labour on 36% in the polls is not as significant as some claim. At recent elections, labour have simply failed to punch their weight.

    And they will do so again in Rochester.

    EdM has staked everything on Not Being The Tories. But the problem is that He Is Ed Miliband.

  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    edited October 2014

    Wow. Pointing out that Gay Marriage was the catalyst for UKIPs rise has really hit raw nerves which suggests that there is truth to it.

    A few observations:

    Young people have always been more liberal than older people. So the idea that people with conservative views are elderly bigots who will die off is a fallacy. People get more conservative as they get older.

    As I have got older I have become less idealistic and more cynical. The libertarianism of my youth has given way to a more guarded 19th Century liberalism. You could say I have become more conservative, politically. But I can't see my views on sexual mores changing. I am not going to become anti-gay just because I am 70.

    It's just that teenagers are even more liberal than me. I recently had the pleasure of going out with a 19 year old and within her circle of friends there seems to be an easy acceptance of bisexuality, promiscuity within the circle of friends, and open relationships, in a way I found difficult to understand. When I was her age, the idea you might live with someone was quite exciting. Now it might just have been the circles she moved in, and I am liberal enough not to condemn her for it, but the future is going to be strange in ways we can't comprehend.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    It baffles me that Chuka Umunna is considered one of Labour's better MPs. Are the rest of them rubbish?
    Yes

    I'm worried who this labour defector to Ukip is... If he's got Carswells phone number I suppose they must be half alright I suppose

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    Wow. Pointing out that Gay Marriage was the catalyst for UKIPs rise has really hit raw nerves which suggests that there is truth to it.

    A few observations:

    Young people have always been more liberal than older people. So the idea that people with conservative views are elderly bigots who will die off is a fallacy. People get more conservative as they get older.

    We are not producing enough children so we are accepting large numbers of immigrants from socially conservative countries. My wife is African and we have more than 3 children. Do the maths.

    UKIP are not stupid enough to campaign on abolishing gay marriage. There is far too powerful a hostile lobby to take that one on. In 20 years time when the country has been dragged away from the left then that policy may come, especially given the above re immigration.

    Shouting racism or homophobia at your opponent for expressing mild and reasoned opposition to your views Is an unpleasant form of bullying and increasingly dosen't work anymore.

    Only thing missing from your post is that we are becoming an older country, as well.

    Otherwise, spot on.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

    True, but that does not undermine the point. Ex Tories are a significant source of support for UKIP, many driven by some of the issues discussed this morning and the damage to the Tories has been modest at worst. In fact for a government in difficult economic times it is remarkable how support for the Tories has stood up. Being deep into the 20s at some point in this Parliament really should have been expected.

    The combined Tory and UKIP scores is in one sense meaningless but in another truly remarkable suggesting a much larger section of centre right support in this country than is usually thought to be the case.
    Could it be true that UKIP will help the Tories in the longer term, though not next year?
    By siphoning off the more right wing supporters and even councillors and MPs it will move the Tories centre of gravity towards the centre. The electorate might take a little time to notice, but then they could lose the 'nasty party' tag and do well in 2050. Depends on who they choose as leader of course following Dave.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

    True, but that does not undermine the point. Ex Tories are a significant source of support for UKIP, many driven by some of the issues discussed this morning and the damage to the Tories has been modest at worst. In fact for a government in difficult economic times it is remarkable how support for the Tories has stood up. Being deep into the 20s at some point in this Parliament really should have been expected.

    The combined Tory and UKIP scores is in one sense meaningless but in another truly remarkable suggesting a much larger section of centre right support in this country than is usually thought to be the case.
    Could it be true that UKIP will help the Tories in the longer term, though not next year?
    By siphoning off the more right wing supporters and even councillors and MPs it will move the Tories centre of gravity towards the centre. The electorate might take a little time to notice, but then they could lose the 'nasty party' tag and do well in 2050. Depends on who they choose as leader of course following Dave.
    Oops typo (or Freudian slip) I meant 2020.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Excellent article from the Labour leader offering a message of hope instead of the nihilism of the rabid right,brim full of the intellectual self-confidence to be expected of a Harvard prof..The question of inequality will be central in an Ed led government.
    As one of the 11 bilateral relationships between parties,it is the SNP-Lab dynamic which could determine the outcome.Gordon Brown is a reassuring presence.However,the east end of Glasgow's poor turn-out indicated the indyref was asking the wrong question,which should have been ,do you want Scotland to be a republic?.The Scottish political parties are currently offering nothing to republicans.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    The defector would have to be someone who fancied his chances in a by-election as a kipper in a labour seat.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited October 2014
    I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking. Like those who were in favour of the Euro.

    It very quickly degenerates into name-calling and fear-mongering at those who don't agree. The concerns aren't addressed in a meaningful way - which leads me to think that they don't have the facts on their side.

    I was frankly pretty astonished that such fripperies as take-aways and popular music were trotted out the other day as any form of defence of mass immigration. And then that pitiful line of argument morphed into Feel Sorry For People With AIDS, which similarly failed to get traction if the recent polling is anything to go by.

    Importing skilled workers [with confirmed jobs] makes oodles of sense, allowing oodles of unskilled ones doesn't when we've plenty of homegrowns. The benefits of free movement within the EU are great, however if the EU's borders aren't properly managed, then it all goes to cock.

    The influx of unskilled non-EU bods is the main issue. Pretending that it isn't or that the local kebab 'n' curry house/taxi firm somehow trumps schools'n'hospitals is beyond laughable.
    Itajai said:

    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.


    The failure to tackle immigration honestly has put us where we are.
    There is a story to tell, eg, an ageing population needs immigration (but is this a Ponzi scheme?), etc.

    Instead we are told immigration is unabashedly good for us. With no explanation as to why. We are told it brings a higher tax yield (ignoring the dichotomy between EU and Third World immigration effects). We are told diversity is good - with no explanation as to why, apart from the cuisine. We are told we cannot do anything about immigration as we are in the EU, ignoring it is non EU immigration which produces jihadis and calls for sharia law.

    The killer being of course anyone questioning immigration is racist and bigoted. It used to close debate. Happily, it doesn't seem to any more.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    ZenPagan said:

    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.

    Immigration globalises wages for most of us. For example I have a job (software engineer writing in C, C++ and C#) which we are constantly told there is a skill shortage for. It is noticeable that when I was looking for a new job in the years 2002,2007 and 2013 that the wages on offer have not significantly changed the going rate on the job boards in all those years for someone of my experience being around the 38 to 45k band depending on location.

    At the same time my colleagues became a much more mixed bag internationally than was previously the case.

    Having said that I personally am not against immigration, what annoys the hell out of me though is that my wages have been "globalised" but the prices of goods haven't. Companies have been protected from globalisation for their goods. Here is an example

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2002/jul/31/tesco

    If you can hire people from anywhere to keep wages down then I as a consumer should be able to buy goods from anywhere to keep my cost of living down as well. If this were the case my living standards wouldn't have dropped by nearly as much.

    The EU is a protectionist monster that prevents the globalisation of prices while shafting the man on the street for wages. This is why sugar within the EU costs 630£ a ton but can be bought on the world market for 250£ a ton

    Your point on prices is very valid. It applies in areas of IT etc where a US price in USD is usually the same iin the UK but in GBP - in reality a 50-60% increase.

    The best jobs do have an international salary value, but the more intermediate ones have a more local value and that is why the EU is losing out to lower wage countries on many new large contracts.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    geoffw said:

    @logical_song
    "What if you're Swedish?"
    Rutabaga

    Assuming Malc is a Scot, by calling someone a turnip, he means swede. (Neeps & tatties are made with swedes, not white turnips). The same convention applies in Geordieland, or at least it did when I lived there.

  • isam said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    It baffles me that Chuka Umunna is considered one of Labour's better MPs. Are the rest of them rubbish?
    Yes

    I'm worried who this labour defector to Ukip is... If he's got Carswells phone number I suppose they must be half alright I suppose

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    It won't be Cruddas. That is 100% certain. If a Labour MP does defect it'll probably be one who is going to retire. I reckon Kate Hoey might be a candidate.

  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    A lot of Labour voters stayed at home.
    That is why, for me, labour on 36% in the polls is not as significant as some claim. At recent elections, labour have simply failed to punch their weight.
    And they will do so again in Rochester.

    Compared to Ashcroft's polls a drop of 6% of Labour voters in one by election and 5% in the other. Very large discrepancies. Could that also be the Ed Miliband factor? As in "I support Labour but cannot be bothered to vote for a party led by Ed".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    The one thing all the party leaders agreed about in their respective conference speech was that "the next election is the most important in a generation...." Hyperbole aside - is Labour prepared to lose that election because of a leader foisted on the MPs and members by the Unions?

    If Labour was ever to take a leaf out the Tories' book and axe a loser, now is a pretty damned good time to do it.....
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

    True, but that does not undermine the point. Ex Tories are a significant source of support for UKIP, many driven by some of the issues discussed this morning and the damage to the Tories has been modest at worst. In fact for a government in difficult economic times it is remarkable how support for the Tories has stood up. Being deep into the 20s at some point in this Parliament really should have been expected.

    The combined Tory and UKIP scores is in one sense meaningless but in another truly remarkable suggesting a much larger section of centre right support in this country than is usually thought to be the case.
    Could it be true that UKIP will help the Tories in the longer term, though not next year?
    By siphoning off the more right wing supporters and even councillors and MPs it will move the Tories centre of gravity towards the centre. The electorate might take a little time to notice, but then they could lose the 'nasty party' tag and do well in 2050. Depends on who they choose as leader of course following Dave.
    2050?

    That certainly puts my generational/demographic timescale into perspective.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    taffys said:

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    The defector would have to be someone who fancied his chances in a by-election as a kipper in a labour seat.

    Cruddas ? You know nothing about the Labour Party.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:


    What is undeniable is that Cameron is having some success in this approach to date. The Tories are 5 or 6% down on 2010 despite UKIP being 12-15% up.

    2010-Conservative switchers are not the only people supporting UKIP.

    True, but that does not undermine the point. Ex Tories are a significant source of support for UKIP, many driven by some of the issues discussed this morning and the damage to the Tories has been modest at worst. In fact for a government in difficult economic times it is remarkable how support for the Tories has stood up. Being deep into the 20s at some point in this Parliament really should have been expected.

    The combined Tory and UKIP scores is in one sense meaningless but in another truly remarkable suggesting a much larger section of centre right support in this country than is usually thought to be the case.
    Could it be true that UKIP will help the Tories in the longer term, though not next year?
    By siphoning off the more right wing supporters and even councillors and MPs it will move the Tories centre of gravity towards the centre. The electorate might take a little time to notice, but then they could lose the 'nasty party' tag and do well in 2050. Depends on who they choose as leader of course following Dave.
    Oops typo (or Freudian slip) I meant 2020.
    2050 was correct !
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    BenM said:

    Whilst Ed may be spectacularly crap, I still believe he is a symptom of a broken Labour Party, with nothing to say on the economy or immigration - both of which they ran exceedingly badly when last in power. A slightly less weird front man might get a hearing - but what are they going to say when they have the voters' ears? Is the absence of policies down to Ed as well? No....

    The Tory record on the economy is abysmal.

    Labour's problem is not their record its their toothless attack.

    However that said the cost of living angle breached Osborne's bull and did - and still does - real damage to all the Tory propaganda.

    It got voters to look at their own circumstances which are much worse than they'd be under another government in a recovery.
    "Labour's problem is not their record its their toothless attack. "

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.... oh, you actually believe that?????
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Cruddas ? You know nothing about the Labour Party.''

    That was a quote from another poster. Personally I don;t think a single labour MP will defect. I reckon Carswell might be bluffing.

    UKIP need to keep convincing ex tories that they are hitting labour.
  • surbiton said:

    taffys said:

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    The defector would have to be someone who fancied his chances in a by-election as a kipper in a labour seat.

    Cruddas ? You know nothing about the Labour Party.

    Cruddas is out of the question. Field? However popular he is personally, winning Birkenhead as the candidate of a Thatcherite party would be one hell of an ask.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Plato said:

    I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking.

    There is an argument to be made, but who will make it?

    1) We have an influx because our economy is doing well, the eurozone is doing badly. It won't always be that way round. Do we want to stop our builders from being able to say "Auf Wiedersehn Pet" if Britain struggles, while the continent thrives?

    2) Do we want to reduce retirement to the sun as an aspiration/possibility?

    3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    @ Plato

    Like, like

    Only fools or non-thinking idealists would bring in mass immigration without first ensuring that all the required services could cope - let alone ignoring the implications of culture change. It is even more amazing that according to the polls that supporters of such parties will allow more of the same.

    Also GB is a small island with little room for population expansion in a way that prevents us all encroaching on each other's personal space.
    Plato said:

    I feel that the paucity of the *pro-immigration* arguments is particularly striking. Like those who were in favour of the Euro.

    It very quickly degenerates into name-calling and fear-mongering at those who don't agree. The concerns aren't addressed in a meaningful way - which leads me to think that they don't have the facts on their side.

    I was frankly pretty astonished that such fripperies as take-aways and popular music were trotted out the other day as any form of defence of mass immigration. And then that pitiful line of argument morphed into Feel Sorry For People With AIDS, which similarly failed to get traction if the recent polling is anything to go by.

    Importing skilled workers [with confirmed jobs] makes oodles of sense, allowing oodles of unskilled ones doesn't when we've plenty of homegrowns. The benefits of free movement within the EU are great, however if the EU's borders aren't properly managed, then it all goes to cock.

    The influx of unskilled non-EU bods is the main issue. Pretending that it isn't or that the local kebab 'n' curry house/taxi firm somehow trumps schools'n'hospitals is beyond laughable.

    Itajai said:

    taffys said:

    I feel the prizes will go to the politician who right now levels with the public, and tells them OK we can stop immigration if you want, you are the voters, but it is not a cure all.

    We cannot hide from globalisation. It is here. Connection with the wider world isn't a choice, it is a necessity.

    Stopping immigration may not drive up wages. The bald truth is that it is more likely to drive out companies.


    The failure to tackle immigration honestly has put us where we are.
    There is a story to tell, eg, an ageing population needs immigration (but is this a Ponzi scheme?), etc.

    Instead we are told immigration is unabashedly good for us. With no explanation as to why. We are told it brings a higher tax yield (ignoring the dichotomy between EU and Third World immigration effects). We are told diversity is good - with no explanation as to why, apart from the cuisine. We are told we cannot do anything about immigration as we are in the EU, ignoring it is non EU immigration which produces jihadis and calls for sharia law.

    The killer being of course anyone questioning immigration is racist and bigoted. It used to close debate. Happily, it doesn't seem to any more.

  • The one thing all the party leaders agreed about in their respective conference speech was that "the next election is the most important in a generation...." Hyperbole aside - is Labour prepared to lose that election because of a leader foisted on the MPs and members by the Unions?

    If Labour was ever to take a leaf out the Tories' book and axe a loser, now is a pretty damned good time to do it.....

    An issue that Labour folk have been remarkably quiet about. But since the Union fixers provide 80% of the campaign funding and a lot of ground/telephone troops for marginal seats, removing your "oligarch's" chosen man has other consequences.

    Len McCluskey, the head of the largest donor, was not party to that election fix, however Red Ed's the closest political soul mate he could hope to be in place, the main alternatives are more right wing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    ZenPagan Surely with the internet you can now buy goods from anywhere
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    PaulMidBeds But homosexual couples can now have children, whether through adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm donors
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    surbiton said:

    taffys said:

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    The defector would have to be someone who fancied his chances in a by-election as a kipper in a labour seat.

    Cruddas ? You know nothing about the Labour Party.
    I do know quite a lot about it actually, I've never voted for anyone else in a GE

    I wasn't suggesting Cruddas would defect, just that I'd like I'm to do so

    Look before you leap
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    It baffles me that Chuka Umunna is considered one of Labour's better MPs. Are the rest of them rubbish?

    Easy, the interminable quest for the "British Obama".
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited October 2014
    *ouch*

    That's reminded me of that infamous Churchill quote
    "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly."

    taffys said:

    A lot of Labour voters stayed at home.

    That is why, for me, labour on 36% in the polls is not as significant as some claim. At recent elections, labour have simply failed to punch their weight.

    And they will do so again in Rochester.

    EdM has staked everything on Not Being The Tories. But the problem is that He Is Ed Miliband.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    rogerh said:

    Alanbrooke, the “shock” is that this is happening and the Government keeps insisting that everything’s getting better.

    No wonder Kippers, for many of whom life isn’t what it was when they were young, don’t feel any recovery.

    Life has been difficult for most of this century for ordinary people in the private sector, this isn't just a 2010 issue. Wages were stagnant under Blair and Trades Unions just shut up and took the money. Hardly a just a coalition issue.
    Have yet to see any of the parties tackling the issue of the widening gap between rich and poor.This has contributed to the "feel bad" factor associated with falling living standards for a large part of the population.

    As discussed on here ad nauseum - a society in which only a small minority enjoys on-going improvements to its living standards is not a sustainable one. There has never been more wealth in the UK, the issue is how it is distributed.

    In the broad historical sense that is true. However per capita incomes aren't back to where they were in 2008 yet and it might be several years before they are. The continuing improvements in living standards people have got used to have come to an end. I agree that the inequality issue can't be ducked any longer and it was instructive that Clegg didn't mention it in his conference speech.

    According to wiki Rochdale has a 20% Muslim population (that was 2001). I was surprised it was that high but it's been mentioned by virtually no-one in the whole by election post-mortem. Chris Mullin claims in his diaries that Labour was reluctant to do anything on sham marriages because of the number of Labour MPs dependent on Asian 'votes'. Are we at a fault line here. A sense that the WWC feels taken for granted, whilst the party worries itself endlessly about losing EM voters.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Surely a bit late for regrets about a problem that they deliberately caused - the lack of apology or corrective action is stark.


    "Labour shares public concerns about the "downsides" of immigration and is responding with a tougher approach. deputy leader Harriet Harman has said.

    UKIP had "tapped into" fears but did not have solutions, she told the BBC.

    Labour is reported to be considering requiring migrants to "earn the right" to claim state benefits and to speak a better level of English before working.

    Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has said the UK should leave the EU unless it can get fundamental changes on immigration."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29587391
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    It baffles me that Chuka Umunna is considered one of Labour's better MPs. Are the rest of them rubbish?
    Yes

    I'm worried who this labour defector to Ukip is... If he's got Carswells phone number I suppose they must be half alright I suppose

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    It won't be Cruddas. That is 100% certain. If a Labour MP does defect it'll probably be one who is going to retire. I reckon Kate Hoey might be a candidate.

    If Cruddas was labour leader I'd start selling Ukip

    If a labour mp defects and doesn't cause a by election it looks bad doesn't it?

    Telford is a labour seat that is Ukip winnable who is the mp there?
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,771
    @Mike_Smithson

    “YouGov found by 9 to 1 that those sampled think the party would be better off without him [EdM].”
    and
    “Just 10% of them [Ukip supporters], ... are satisfied with Dave.”

    The reasons are totally different. People doubt Ed’s competence, but (especially) Ukip supporters doubt Dave’s trustworthiness. Competence, however, trumps trustworthiness as a desirable characteristic for a pm, as confirmed by the personal ratings.
  • chestnut said:


    3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.

    The Sunil on Sunday's solution to the Commonwealth v. EU is issue is devilishly simple. Because English is one of the official languages of the EU (and according to Wiki, "51% of EU citizens decribe themselves as proficient in English"), then the EU is eligible to be annexed, I mean absorbed, I mean invited to join the Commonwealth. Of course, it would mean the Commonwealth would then have land borders with Putin's Russia (Estonia, Latvia, Finland, as well as Poland and Lithuania (Kaliningrad). But that would make things interesting :)

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    The one thing all the party leaders agreed about in their respective conference speech was that "the next election is the most important in a generation...." Hyperbole aside - is Labour prepared to lose that election because of a leader foisted on the MPs and members by the Unions?

    If Labour was ever to take a leaf out the Tories' book and axe a loser, now is a pretty damned good time to do it.....

    An issue that Labour folk have been remarkably quiet about. But since the Union fixers provide 80% of the campaign funding and a lot of ground/telephone troops for marginal seats, removing your "oligarch's" chosen man has other consequences.

    Len McCluskey, the head of the largest donor, was not party to that election fix, however Red Ed's the closest political soul mate he could hope to be in place, the main alternatives are more right wing.
    Mcluskey wants an eu referendum
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    She's a lemming.

    LATEST:Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman says "we are not going to have a leadership change" ahead of the election.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    Funny comment in the Times Red Box update:

    "The former culture secretary Maria Miller is calling for action to prevent teenagers from trading naked photos. There is no news on whether Tory MPs will face similar restrictions."

    There are a lot of things one might worry about for the next generation. Sharing nude photos over the age of consent seems to me quite low on the list. And I'm curious how Ms Miller would go about it. Should ISPs appoint a Nudity Watchdog, with powers to check the age of anyone sending a friend a photograph? Should offenders be imprisoned, or merely fined, or made to wear burqas 24 hours a day? Is there a Meaningless Populist Demand of the Week award?

    It does seem bizarre to me that a couple of 16 or 17 sending intimate pictures to each other could face prosecution when they can quite legally see the same thing for real.
    Unfortunately there is a trend of thought that using a particular medium for something imbues the action with special menace and evil. Hence hysteria about many things taking place on or through the internet which may well be terrible, but they are no more terrible than if they took place over the phone for example, and other things may not even be wrong in person but are seen as sinister if done some other way.
    Indeed. The Rotherham PCC was told by one chap at a public meeting, "if I had a gun, I'd shoot you". If he'd said the same thing on Twitter, we'd have imprisoned rather than applauded him.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    VolcanoPete Had the referendum been on a republic Scotland would have voted 75-80% No, the Queen loves Scotland and Balmoral and is a descendant of the Scottish monarchs, the Scots, even Salmond, in return love her
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited October 2014

    chestnut said:


    3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.

    The Sunil on Sunday's solution to the Commonwealth v. EU is issue is devilishly simple. Because English is one of the official languages of the EU (and according to Wiki, "51% of EU citizens decribe themselves as proficient in English"), then the EU is eligible to be annexed, I mean absorbed, I mean invited to join the Commonwealth. Of course, it would mean the Commonwealth would then have land borders with Putin's Russia (Estonia, Latvia, Finland, as well as Poland and Lithuania (Kaliningrad). But that would make things interesting :)

    In which European country would you like to be a Commonwealth Commisioner, Sunil?
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    HYUFD said:

    PaulMidBeds But homosexual couples can now have children, whether through adoption, surrogate mothers or sperm donors

    More accurately, other people's children.

    Strange that the purchase of children from their mothers has such support from so-called liberals.

    As an aside, it is an expensive process from which the poor are excluded.
  • MikeK said:

    chestnut said:


    3) UKIP's pro Commowealth, anti EU position is a vulnerability. We haven't imported terrorism from Poland.

    The Sunil on Sunday's solution to the Commonwealth v. EU is issue is devilishly simple. Because English is one of the official languages of the EU (and according to Wiki, "51% of EU citizens decribe themselves as proficient in English"), then the EU is eligible to be annexed, I mean absorbed, I mean invited to join the Commonwealth. Of course, it would mean the Commonwealth would then have land borders with Putin's Russia (Estonia, Latvia, Finland, as well as Poland and Lithuania (Kaliningrad). But that would make things interesting :)

    In which European country would you like to be a Commonwealth Commisioner, Sunil?
    Luxembourg :)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014
    I guess if field or hoey defected they could contest a kipper labour marginal at the GE rather than the seat they currently hold for labour?

    Same for Zac Goldsmith
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.

    Which we won;t be able to tap into because of green policies and commitments to get the 'right kind of energy' at ludicrous prices.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited October 2014
    isam said:

    The one thing all the party leaders agreed about in their respective conference speech was that "the next election is the most important in a generation...." Hyperbole aside - is Labour prepared to lose that election because of a leader foisted on the MPs and members by the Unions?

    If Labour was ever to take a leaf out the Tories' book and axe a loser, now is a pretty damned good time to do it.....

    An issue that Labour folk have been remarkably quiet about. But since the Union fixers provide 80% of the campaign funding and a lot of ground/telephone troops for marginal seats, removing your "oligarch's" chosen man has other consequences.

    Len McCluskey, the head of the largest donor, was not party to that election fix, however Red Ed's the closest political soul mate he could hope to be in place, the main alternatives are more right wing.
    Mcluskey wants an eu referendum
    But McCluskey wants a Labour Govt more. However at 63 he may only have a few more years at the top. Woodley retired at 63, Simpson at 66.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I guess if field or hoey defected they could contest a kipper labour marginal at the GE rather than the seat they currently hold for labour?

    I think a labour defection is a bit of a red herring put about by kippers flushed with success and anxious to keep ex tories onside.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited October 2014
    isam said:

    isam said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh ‏@paulwaugh 4m4 minutes ago
    Chuka taking on UKIP: 'I'm the son of an immigrant..Of course there are racists in UKIP, they say terrible things about women."

    Do'h

    It baffles me that Chuka Umunna is considered one of Labour's better MPs. Are the rest of them rubbish?
    Yes

    I'm worried who this labour defector to Ukip is... If he's got Carswells phone number I suppose they must be half alright I suppose

    C'mon Field or Cruddas!

    It won't be Cruddas. That is 100% certain. If a Labour MP does defect it'll probably be one who is going to retire. I reckon Kate Hoey might be a candidate.

    If Cruddas was labour leader I'd start selling Ukip

    If a labour mp defects and doesn't cause a by election it looks bad doesn't it?

    Telford is a labour seat that is Ukip winnable who is the mp there?
    Cruddas is not leader material, isam. He reminds me of David Miliband in the way he always avoids taking chances or a gamble. In the end he would be no better than Red ED. Nigel would make mincemeat of him.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Smashed windows theory

    I've just passed West Ham station and the four sided clock was showing ten to six on one face and half past nine on another

    Little things
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    The one thing all the party leaders agreed about in their respective conference speech was that "the next election is the most important in a generation...." Hyperbole aside - is Labour prepared to lose that election because of a leader foisted on the MPs and members by the Unions?

    If Labour was ever to take a leaf out the Tories' book and axe a loser, now is a pretty damned good time to do it.....

    An issue that Labour folk have been remarkably quiet about. But since the Union fixers provide 80% of the campaign funding and a lot of ground/telephone troops for marginal seats, removing your "oligarch's" chosen man has other consequences.

    Len McCluskey, the head of the largest donor, was not party to that election fix, however Red Ed's the closest political soul mate he could hope to be in place, the main alternatives are more right wing.
    Mcluskey wants an eu referendum
    But McCluskey wants a Labour Govt more. However at 63 he may only have a few more years at the top. Woodley retired at 63, Simpson at 66.
    Ed Offering one might get him both
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited October 2014
    SeanT you are right about being optimistic on the global economy and the oil price is heading down. Whilst the world grows at 3% the EC does not. The EC is a drag on global growth. A puzzle that Nick Clegg and Lib Dems forecast that in 10 years time the EC will be much the same as now.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I tried explaining that Turnips Were Swedes only last week to a Mancunian, he looked at me totally baffled.

    Did find it very odd when I moved down here to discover that the two veg were cross-dressing, and that to ask for a pint of Scotch would make a barman flinch.

    geoffw said:

    @logical_song
    "What if you're Swedish?"
    Rutabaga

    Assuming Malc is a Scot, by calling someone a turnip, he means swede. (Neeps & tatties are made with swedes, not white turnips). The same convention applies in Geordieland, or at least it did when I lived there.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,880
    Nonoinoz Homosexual couples still provide sperm for surrogate mothers or eggs for sperm donors, and even if it can be costly more are doing it and there is no evidence they make any worse parents than heterosexual couples, in some cases they are better
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited October 2014
    taffys said:

    As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.
    Which we won;t be able to tap into because of green policies and commitments to get the 'right kind of energy' at ludicrous prices.

    Another Labour/Ed Miliband legacy that the Lib Dems have blocked reform of.
    Same as Immigration, the EC, HR etc etc
  • Swiss_BobSwiss_Bob Posts: 619
    Easy win for UKIP in Boston and Skegness:

    http://www.skegnessstandard.co.uk/news/local/big-win-for-ukip-in-skegness-poll-finds-1-6349378

    Betfair still not put additional markets up for UKIP MPs but say they are on the case.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    SeanT said:

    Too much doom and gloom here about the global economy. Yes we are approaching a difficult period (again). China is slowing (though not necessarily crashing), Europe is stagnant (but it has been for five years, plus ca change), the Middle East is in flames (deja vu?).

    Etc.

    And yet the IMF is still predicting global growth of... 3.3%. Not brilliant, but hardly apocalyptic - it's actually bang on the average annual global growth, for the last 30 years.

    And growth is expected to accelerate next year.


    http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/imf-lowering-global-growth-to-3334-not-badoneil_1201112.html

    More importantly, medium/long term prospects for the global economy are, arguably, excellent, as we enter an era of incredibly cheap energy.

    Oil is plummeting in price

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/oil-price-slump-strains-budgets-of-some-opec-members-1412952367

    Partly because places like America are producing so much shale gas

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-03/saudi-arabia-oil-sales-to-u-s-imperiled-by-shale-boom.html

    Meanwhile renewables like solar are poised to become seriously competitive

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100027336/solar-to-match-coal-in-china-by-2016-threatening-fossil-dominance/

    if there is one thing that is guaranteed to boost economic output - it is new sources of cheap energy. It was, after all, the harnessing of steam that drove the Industrial Revolution.

    As it happens, we are entering an era of cheap and abundant energy.

    Cheer up.

    It's amazing how volatile your emotions are, SeanT; only a few days ago you were in the pit of doom.
This discussion has been closed.