The deal is that Ukip stand aside and let the Tories win isn't it?
Yes, in order to get what they claim to want, a referendum on leaving the EU.
Not hard to understand, surely?
If they want something other than a referendum, then what would any deal be about? Livery on trains?
How about a genuine reduction in immigration? That's something the Conservatives are too incompetent to do on their own. Heck, they can't even stop their own test centres from reading out answers aloud in the exam hall to applicants without the BBC tipping them off.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
I think.
Then if it does it could also apply to the theoretical Coalition deal we were talking about originally? So either that parliamentary procedure is there for both circumstances or it is not for both and Cameron is not being genuine.
How about a genuine reduction in immigration? That's something the Conservatives are too incompetent to do on their own.
They haven't had a chance to do something about it on their own, yet. That is one of the (admittedly rather few) areas where the LibDems have had a significant effect.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
I think.
Then if it does it could also apply to the theoretical Coalition deal we were talking about originally? So either that parliamentary procedure is there for both circumstances or it is not for both and Cameron is not being genuine.
As I said, I think it only applies to specific pledges in the manifesto.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
Does Farage ever say sorry when he is proved wrong? On 2nd November 2007 in an interview with Steve Richards. (Farage: Let’s not forget he was going to take the Tory party out of the European People’s Party in Strasbourg. He hasn’t done so. Steve Richards: He still says he’s going to. Nigel Farage: Well he won’t. But he won’t, you know. We all know that he won’t. We know that he won’t.)
2 years later after getting his MEP candidates selected on basis of leaving the EPP, the Conservative MEPs left the EPP. Cameron met his promise. Farage forgot to admit he was wrong...
Now we have Farage saying that Cameron will not meet his promise of a referendum in 2017. Of course Cameron may not be able to do it if EdMilliband is PM because Farage's UKIP let in Labour etc etc.
Well I guess that is one way a Farage forecast is met? Shame about Farage not putting the country's interests first.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
The House of Lords will never block Bills that have been explicitly pledged in the manifesto (and the in-out referendum will be corner-stage in 2015 unlike 2010). Back to the Dummies guide to procedure for you.
Well if that's the case then they will not block them if they are part of the theoretical Coalition agreement (which will be the amlagamation in some form of two manifestos) which was the original point that your colleagues were so keen to suggest was not the case.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
I think.
Then if it does it could also apply to the theoretical Coalition deal we were talking about originally? So either that parliamentary procedure is there for both circumstances or it is not for both and Cameron is not being genuine.
As I said, I think it only applies to specific pledges in the manifesto.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
Yes but it will be a pledge in both manifestos won't it
Anne Soubry is a nasty piece of work. Her abuse to Farage made it clear. Can you imagine if a male politician had described Anne Soubry as someone that looked like they enjoyed a self-sex act? It would have been career ending for him.
Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
Quite so. And what did they propose in 2010? - Key NHS services put out to tender, with charities and businesses taking franchises on key services with fixed budgets - Introduce Health Credit Vouchers, allowing people to opt-out of the NHS if they want private insurance http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617187.stm
Mr Nabavi - this is the Orwellian re-writing of policy 1984 style under Farage. Of course we are asked to believe that UKIP have always (well since late 2014) been behind socialist NHS and against private company involvement....
What is really shocking is the lack of anyone of principles inside UKIP challenging these Orwellian shifts of position. Instead the members of UKIP just jump to the tune of the latest switch of policy. Very bizarre and very worrying. Ministry of Truth time?
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
I think.
Then if it does it could also apply to the theoretical Coalition deal we were talking about originally? So either that parliamentary procedure is there for both circumstances or it is not for both and Cameron is not being genuine.
As I said, I think it only applies to specific pledges in the manifesto.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
Yes but it will be a pledge in both manifestos won't it
The Tory pledge is for 2017.
So a July 2015 referendum is impracticable for a variety of reasons.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
I think.
Then if it does it could also apply to the theoretical Coalition deal we were talking about originally? So either that parliamentary procedure is there for both circumstances or it is not for both and Cameron is not being genuine.
As I said, I think it only applies to specific pledges in the manifesto.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
Yes but it will be a pledge in both manifestos won't it
The Tory pledge is for 2017.
So a July 2015 referendum is impracticable for a variety of reasons.
Boris said this morning that what is behind UKIP's rise is control. People feel powerless.
And you can see why. Every PM is hamstrung by an ever expanding network of international treaties and commitments that binds him or her.
People want those commitments unwound.
Boris also said it was wrong for Cameron not to make it explicit that he will back the UK leaving the EU if he does not get a satisfactory renegotiation. Of course Cameron cannot or will not say this because he knows there can be no satisfactory renegotiation.
Boris was wrong on a few things this morning. He tried to support Cameron's position by saying there should be quotas on EU migrants. He seemed to think this was something Cameron might achieve. It is utter pie in the sky of course as that is one red line the EU as a whole will never agree to. It needs every one of the 28 members to ratify such a change and the majority of them are absolutely committed to that principle (as is the EU as a whole).
It is a shame that when it comes to the EU Boris' critical faculties fail him so badly.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
Err no. The parliament act applies to the Tory manifesto so the 2017 is the one the House of Lords can't be blocked by the ermine clad.
I think.
Then if it does it could also apply to the theoretical Coalition deal we were talking about originally? So either that parliamentary procedure is there for both circumstances or it is not for both and Cameron is not being genuine.
As I said, I think it only applies to specific pledges in the manifesto.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
Yes but it will be a pledge in both manifestos won't it
The Tory pledge is for 2017.
So a July 2015 referendum is impracticable for a variety of reasons.
Oh FFS read my original post I said exactly that!
Sorry. It is rare to see a Kipper admitting Farage is talking pish and Cameron is right.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
The House of Lords will never block Bills that have been explicitly pledged in the manifesto (and the in-out referendum will be corner-stage in 2015 unlike 2010). Back to the Dummies guide to procedure for you.
Well if that's the case then they will not block them if they are part of the theoretical Coalition agreement (which will be the amlagamation in some form of two manifestos) which was the original point that your colleagues were so keen to suggest was not the case.
No. If the Tories promised a referendum and specifically referred to 2017, then the Lords would be within their rights not to agree to the earlier date.
But this is all preposterous. Aren't we all agreed that there is not a cat in hells chance of such a 'pact'? To be fair, you thought it pretty unimaginable in your first response to RCS.
I am one of Soubry's many detractors. That said the current way of operating is for Ministers to rely on their Civil Servants to investigate and advise. It is time that a civil servant was sacked over this - it would do wonders to the rest. Soubry remains a "dead mp walking" for GE 2015. Nick, I hope you are going to do a more independent job next time as an MP and follow Adam Smith economics and not the magic money tree.
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
.
I think.
As I said, I think it only applies to specific pledges in the manifesto.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
Yes but it will be a pledge in both manifestos won't it
The Tory pledge is for 2017.
So a July 2015 referendum is impracticable for a variety of reasons.
Oh FFS read my original post I said exactly that!
Sorry. It is rare to see a Kipper admitting Farage is talking pish and Cameron is right.
Farage? Whats it got to do with Farage? It was RCS1000 putting forward a theoretical scenario asking questions about how UKIP would respond if a referendum in July 2015 was won / lost. I gave my opinion. Farage was never mentioned
This may well have already been asked, but imagine a situation like 2010, except with the Conservatives on (say) 310, UKIP on (say) 30 seats, and no coalition with the LibDems possible.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
The referendum is won by "in".
Does UKIP stay in the coalition now? What are their other demands?
Next question.
Same again, but referendum is won by "out".
Does UKIP survive as an independent party post EU withdrawal? Does it have a distinctive enough identity and set of policies once its raison d'etre has gone?
To authorise a referendum a majority vote in parliament is needed. No majority no vote.
UKIP demands (and gets) a July 2015 EU referendum in return for coalition.
And if a referendum is part of the price for Coalition then it can be assumed that the Coalition will have a majority and will pass the referendum bill. Does that make it easier for you to understand?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to Coalition?
And the House of Lords, where Labour, the Lib Dems and crossbenchers comfortably outnumber Tories + UKIP?
Or do we need to write you a dummies guide to parliamentary procedure?
Ah ok then so Cameron's commitment to a referendum is not genuine then. Good to know...
You said it not me.....
The House of Lords will never block Bills that have been explicitly pledged in the manifesto (and the in-out referendum will be corner-stage in 2015 unlike 2010). Back to the Dummies guide to procedure for you.
Well if that's the case then they will not block them if they are part of the theoretical Coalition agreement (which will be the amlagamation in some form of two manifestos) which was the original point that your colleagues were so keen to suggest was not the case.
No. If the Tories promised a referendum and specifically referred to 2017, then the Lords would be within their rights not to agree to the earlier date.
But this is all preposterous. Aren't we all agreed that there is not a cat in hells chance of such a 'pact'? To be fair, you thought it pretty unimaginable in your first response to RCS.
It was a theoretical scenario which assumed that a deal had been done. There are a thousand reasons why it won't happen. It was just a bit of speculation.
Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
Well, on the NHS, UKIP are now close to the policy position of Unite, Labour and the Lib Dems as set out by the UKIP Health spokesperson Louise Bourse. UKIP apparently want any threats of further use of private companies in the NHS removed.
"Ms Bours will call on David Cameron to support the trade union’s stance that the NHS should be exempted. There is real concern in the health service that the agreement will make it nigh-on impossible for any government to take back control of a service currently provided by the private sector, should they fail to perform adequately." ...... " the NHS was seen as ‘a victory for the working class’ at its creation in 1948."
You may be correct - only last month, Ukip were pledging to block a controversial transatlantic trade deal which critics say could open up the health service to American firms.
Been out doing voter ID again here in sunny Stockton South. A ward that elected two LibDems in 2011 which surprisingly enough is a marginal now. Little sign of the LibDems but lots of talk of UKIP, mostly from Tory in 2010 voters. Spent some time talking to switchers to understand why - Immigration the main issue (none in the area! Also both Tory and Labour accused of never talking about immigration), but also from the ex Tories that Cameron couldn't be trusted on the referendum pledge.
So the main takeaway points? They don't care about policy, they have stopped listening to the established parties, they all cited economic and social mess. So UKIP as a protest against all of us that's gut based rather than head based. They will be hard to shift, which is why they aren't heading "home" to vote Tory. They claim not to have moved opinions, its the Tories who have abandoned them.
What has Yvette Cooper ever done to suggest she'd be a good leader of the Labour party? Bonus points for anyone who can mention anything at all she has done since the last GE.
What has Yvette Cooper ever done to suggest she'd be a good leader of the Labour party? Bonus points for anyone who can mention anything at all she has done since the last GE.
She's a woman. That gets her points with some.
She's not Ed. That gets her all the points she needs.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
You may be correct - only last month, Ukip were pledging to block a controversial transatlantic trade deal which critics say could open up the health service to American firms.
What has Yvette Cooper ever done to suggest she'd be a good leader of the Labour party? Bonus points for anyone who can mention anything at all she has done since the last GE.
She's a woman. That gets her points with some.
She's not Ed. That gets her all the points she needs.
also wouldn't Harriet Harman have to resign as deputy as by her own rule, the deputy should be female if the leader is male & hence should also apply vice versa... Or will she be a raving hypocrit?
also wouldn't Harriet Harman have to resign as deputy as by her own rule, the deputy should be female if the leader is male & hence should also apply vice versa... Or will she be a raving hypocrit?
The rule only says one of them has to be a woman. It doesn't say they can't both be women.
What has Yvette Cooper ever done to suggest she'd be a good leader of the Labour party? Bonus points for anyone who can mention anything at all she has done since the last GE.
She introduced HIPS.
Since the election she's done a great job of holding the Home Secretary to account. That's why Theresa May is one of the favourites to be next Tory leader.
also wouldn't Harriet Harman have to resign as deputy as by her own rule, the deputy should be female if the leader is male & hence should also apply vice versa... Or will she be a raving hypocrit?
The rule only says one of them has to be a woman. It doesn't say they can't both be women.
Shouldn't the rule be that only one of them has to be useless.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
All political parties are coalitions: the Conservatives were the coalition between the owners (and operators) of capital, and the shires; the Labour Party was the coalition of the working classes, public sector workers, and the defenders of the vulnerable; the Liberal Democrats were a coalition between old social democrats, sandal wearing bearded (basically anti-authority) liberals, and a few 'orange book' libertarians. UKIP is a coalition too: there are libertarians (Richard Tyndall, for example); those who think too much immigration is bad for the working classes (isam); and those who worry about our nations being subsumed in a European superstate.
What has Yvette Cooper ever done to suggest she'd be a good leader of the Labour party? Bonus points for anyone who can mention anything at all she has done since the last GE.
She introduced HIPS.
Since the election she's done a great job of holding the Home Secretary to account. That's why Theresa May is one of the favourites to be next Tory leader.
Labour would be stupid not to ditch Ed for her.
It is rather ironic that that should be the case when Immigration is the major issue, UKIP are riding high and the Government's immigration policy is in tatters (not to mention the Passport office chaos and various other issues)
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
No, if Farage gets to decide who is the leader of the Conservative Party, that is a takeover. He'd demand something else next.
The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:
- Referendum in 2017, as proposed - Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash - Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side
That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.
No, the guy on an ego trip is David Cameron. The man is an old fashioned patriarch, who thinks the plebs should get in line. He actively campaigns to keep an outdated electoral system so that he can then argue it won't allow voters to benefit from their preferred choice and must back him instead. At any stage during his time as leader he could have reached out and listened to others. But instead he prefers to follow a fool's path, like hiring mates like Andy Coulson despite everyone's advice, and to mock fellow right-wingers as "fruitcakes and loons". He creates promises he knows that can't be granted, like taking action on EU immigration, and he is deliberately deceptive about things like vetoing EU treaties and capping the British expense to the EU. Many people are born into privilege and yet remain down-to-Earth and principled. Cameron instead has absorbed the worst of the arrogance and manipulativeness of his class. He will fail to win a majority whether or not UKIP stand against him, and it's his own damn fault. No matter how much his slavish sycophants want to rail at a scapegoat.
Spoken as if lifted from a class-hating socialist's speech.
I am one of Soubry's many detractors. That said the current way of operating is for Ministers to rely on their Civil Servants to investigate and advise. It is time that a civil servant was sacked over this - it would do wonders to the rest. Soubry remains a "dead mp walking" for GE 2015. Nick, I hope you are going to do a more independent job next time as an MP and follow Adam Smith economics and not the magic money tree.
The fact that Nick Palmer looks set to become MP again next year tells you everything you need to know about the rise of Ukip
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
They will face the same problem as the Lib Dems, facing different ways north and south means you will eventually get found out.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
All political parties are coalitions: the Conservatives were the coalition between the owners (and operators) of capital, and the shires; the Labour Party was the coalition of the working classes, public sector workers, and the defenders of the vulnerable; the Liberal Democrats were a coalition between old social democrats, sandal wearing bearded (basically anti-authority) liberals, and a few 'orange book' libertarians. UKIP is a coalition too: there are libertarians (Richard Tyndall, for example); those who think too much immigration is bad for the working classes (isam); and those who worry about our nations being subsumed in a European superstate.
Indeed. I'm just pointing out that it's a very broad church.
No, the guy on an ego trip is David Cameron. The man is an old fashioned patriarch, who thinks the plebs should get in line. He actively campaigns to keep an outdated electoral system so that he can then argue it won't allow voters to benefit from their preferred choice and must back him instead. At any stage during his time as leader he could have reached out and listened to others. But instead he prefers to follow a fool's path, like hiring mates like Andy Coulson despite everyone's advice, and to mock fellow right-wingers as "fruitcakes and loons". He creates promises he knows that can't be granted, like taking action on EU immigration, and he is deliberately deceptive about things like vetoing EU treaties and capping the British expense to the EU. Many people are born into privilege and yet remain down-to-Earth and principled. Cameron instead has absorbed the worst of the arrogance and manipulativeness of his class. He will fail to win a majority whether or not UKIP stand against him, and it's his own damn fault. No matter how much his slavish sycophants want to rail at a scapegoat.
Spoken as if lifted from a class-hating socialist's speech.
I actually specifically pointed out that there were many privileged decent people, but I suppose there's not much point in engaging with people who don't actually read what is written.
A wonderful claim from the western land of lawyers: suing because Red Bull doesn't give you wings or increased athletic prowess. Or, in fact, the ability to tell marketing slogans from reality:
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
Indeed, but made all the easier by the fact that the establishment three parties ignore the views of swathes of the country.
As kind of the antithesis of the "hard-working Asian", my dad arrived here from Tanganyika (as was) in 1954, nearly 20 years ahead of the Ugandans, but achieved eff all really.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
They will face the same problem as the Lib Dems, facing different ways north and south means you will eventually get found out.
If you look at the seats that UKIP are most successful in in the south they are mostly ones which went Labour under Blair. As such the message won't be that much different north or south. What UKIP are looking for is the common ground not the centre ground and it is the centre ground that by its nature forces parties to face both ways simultaneously
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
Indeed, but made all the easier by the fact that the establishment three parties ignore the views of swathes of the country.
They are not ignoring all the views: they are having to deal with reality. UKIP does not have to deal with reality, which explains the 2010 GE manifesto ...
Boris also said it was wrong for Cameron not to make it explicit that he will back the UK leaving the EU if he does not get a satisfactory renegotiation. Of course Cameron cannot or will not say this because he knows there can be no satisfactory renegotiation.
I'd assumed that Cameron would try to sell anything less than arriving back from Brussels visibly bruised with a "Piss off, posh twat" sign pinned to his back as a negotiating triumph, so what he says follows from an "unsatisfactory" renegotiation was no practical meaning. I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to the position Boris is suggesting before the next election.
As kind of the antithesis of the "hard-working Asian", my dad arrived here from Tanganyika (as was) in 1954, nearly 20 years ahead of the Ugandans, but achieved eff all really.
As a kind of antithesis of the "hard working Brit", I'm not actually working at the moment. And I'm rather happy about that. ;-)
I am one of Soubry's many detractors. That said the current way of operating is for Ministers to rely on their Civil Servants to investigate and advise. It is time that a civil servant was sacked over this - it would do wonders to the rest. Soubry remains a "dead mp walking" for GE 2015. Nick, I hope you are going to do a more independent job next time as an MP and follow Adam Smith economics and not the magic money tree.
The fact that Nick Palmer looks set to become MP again next year tells you everything you need to know about the rise of Ukip
Ukip seem to be behind everything these days, even, it seems, getting Nick elected in a Tory ultra-marginal.
As kind of the antithesis of the "hard-working Asian", my dad arrived here from Tanganyika (as was) in 1954, nearly 20 years ahead of the Ugandans, but achieved eff all really.
"Kurds against ISIS protest in Wales/England" - it was the 6000 asylum seeking Kurds in Plymouth who put a knapsack bomb on the feeble minded boy to explode in Exeter town centre.
As kind of the antithesis of the "hard-working Asian", my dad arrived here from Tanganyika (as was) in 1954, nearly 20 years ahead of the Ugandans, but achieved eff all really.
"Kurds against ISIS protest in Wales/England" - it was the 6000 asylum seeking Kurds in Plymouth who put a knapsack bomb on the feeble minded boy to explode in Exeter town centre.
Doesn't seem like a job which requires 6000 people really.
"NHS call centre workers to be trained in spotting Ebola and ordered to send ambulance workers in full chemical protection gear to suspected cases" - proper gear, thank heavens.
What has Yvette Cooper ever done to suggest she'd be a good leader of the Labour party? Bonus points for anyone who can mention anything at all she has done since the last GE.
Agreed. The fact people in the Westminster bubble are tipping her shows how little they've learnt. Just like Ed, she speaks in ProfessionalPoliticianese and doesn't show any human emotion. That is absolutely the worst thing for working-class Labour voters, who feel the top of the party are all aliens who don't understand normal life. She'd maybe be a passable shadow chancellor (she'd be better than her husband atleast), but she aint leadership material.
As kind of the antithesis of the "hard-working Asian", my dad arrived here from Tanganyika (as was) in 1954, nearly 20 years ahead of the Ugandans, but achieved eff all really.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
The usual graceless comment from a cameroon.
And stupid, too. You are supposed to be attracting former supporters back into the fold, not alienating them, and others, further.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
Thanks for that, I shall be rushing to the Tory fold on the back of your enlightened comments.
If Cameron was such a good politician, he would haven't been outflanked on the right. As for his cunning attempt to see off Salmond, it worked, but at the price of building up support for the Scottish separatists.
He has been a waste of space since day 1, though the fact that Miliband is behind him on so many levels says more about his failings than DC's strengths.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
I thought I'd do a check on the age of UKIP voters using the Survation constituency polls as these are dedicated to seats of interest to UKIP
Of 14 Survation polls carried out in constituencies 7 indicated under 55's outnumbered over 55's in the UKIP, 1 split them 50-50 and 6 had the over 55's outnumbering the under 55's
I compared them with the Tory profiles in the same polls and in 8 of the constituencies Over 55's outnumbered under 55's in the vote and in 6 under 55's outnumbered over 55's
Basically there is little difference between the Tory and UKIP age profile.
Now in terms of wealth there are Ashcroft marginal polls which again demonstrate the the UKIP vote is distributed fairly evenly between the AB/C1 higher wealth group and the C2/DE group. IIRC the one I looked at had a 48% to %2% split respectively.
Furthermore there is considerable criticism of the social model they used to come up with such a conclusion not least because it only considers income rich wealth and not asset rich wealth. So the older people they identified may not have a big pension but they could be living in a £500,000 house full of their possessions. Such people would be categorised as having a low income and therefore poor but are they if they can live within their means?
Wealth in terms of polling is very much relative and does not consider asset wealth or in fact disposable income.
Anyway I'll leave you to make your own mind up.but I think Goodwin and Ford's original analysis is nonsense.......
Has anyone spotted that if the choice is Labour or Conservative then the LiB Dems will vote equally between the two (20-20) but UKIP will switch a third of its vote to the Tories?. This suggests that the UKIP ex Labour supporters are seriously annoyed with what Labour have done. It also suggests that Labour will have serious problems making headway in the marginals.
What remains to be seen is which seats are looked at by the electorate as Labour-Conservative only and which are Labour-Conservative-UKIP 3-ways.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
(Trying to make a non party point here)
Isn't that balance (your example between run-down northern towns, and ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties being just one strand) exactly what all parties should be trying to do. The alternative seems to be to say get stuffed to one or another sections of society.
It does rather seem to be a measure of the paucity of real skilled politicians these days that we are even commenting on the fact that such a balance is necessary.
Edit - and I do of course include most UKIP politicians in that description as well as excluding an honorable few in all parties.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
Not as broad as you might think.
Labours voters in the north are in many ways quite right wing. Far more so than most of Labour (other than people like Frank Field) realise. However since the franchise was widened in 1918 they have basically had the choice of Labour, the Tory rentier land/mill owners who have always milked them, or occasionally a full blown fascist, so they generally voted Labour.
Now for the first time they have a viable alternative to Labour. It would be fascinating to hear Hugh Gaitskills opinion on Farage were he still alive.
Old - they still believe Labour today is the Labour of their youth, and the NHS trumps everything Poor - magic money tree will solve everything,and the "rich" will pick up the tab Thick - they do not realise Labour despises them. They truly believe Labour will make the economy stronger
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
Thanks for that, I shall be rushing to the Tory fold on the back of your enlightened comments.
They will be suggesting restricting the franchise next to ensure that these thickos can't displace englightened intelligent liberals.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. .
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
All political parties are coalitions: the Conservatives were the coalition between the owners (and operators) of capital, and the shires; the Labour Party was the coalition of the working classes, public sector workers, and the defenders of the vulnerable; the Liberal Democrats were a coalition between old social democrats, sandal wearing bearded (basically anti-authority) liberals, and a few 'orange book' libertarians. UKIP is a coalition too: there are libertarians (Richard Tyndall, for example); those who think too much immigration is bad for the working classes (isam); and those who worry about our nations being subsumed in a European superstate.
You've missed off religious/social conservatives, who formerly used to be in the Tory bloc. No longer.
Famously, in that land of FPTP, the Democrats used to be a coalition of Northern liberals and 'Dixiecrats' in the South. The civil rights era put a stop to that.
It just goes to show Cameron's incompetence; campaign for FPTP, but smash your coalition that could give you power.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
Thanks for that, I shall be rushing to the Tory fold on the back of your enlightened comments.
They will be suggesting restricting the franchise next to ensure that these thickos can't displace englightened intelligent liberals.
Or some 'I'm Alright Jack' moron will suggest removing the vote if you are over 66.
Richard Benyon @RichardBenyonMP Oct 11 Now this is funny: Clacton resident who told a TV reporters: "Yes, I voted UKIP. The Tory MP's done nothing for years"
Listening to all the vox pops from Clacton it just confirms that UKIP voters are old, poor and thick.
Thanks for that, I shall be rushing to the Tory fold on the back of your enlightened comments.
They will be suggesting restricting the franchise next to ensure that these thickos can't displace englightened intelligent liberals.
Or some 'I'm Alright Jack' moron will suggest removing the vote if you are over 66.
I think that is one reason they like the EU so much. It enables people like them to do things unelected rather than be democratically accountable to oiks.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
(Trying to make a non party point here)
Isn't that balance (your example between run-down northern towns, and ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties being just one strand) exactly what all parties should be trying to do. The alternative seems to be to say get stuffed to one or another sections of society.
It does rather seem to be a measure of the paucity of real skilled politicians these days that we are even commenting on the fact that such a balance is necessary.
Edit - and I do of course include most UKIP politicians in that description as well as excluding an honorable few in all parties.
You may well be right. But the problem is achieving that balance.
Even then, you may have everything perfectly balanced, only for a.n.other competing party to come along and say:" Look! it isn't balanced! We can do better for you!" or "It's balanced, but those over there don't deserve it to be balanced! It's not fair"
And that's if you get the balance correct. Perhaps society is too divided for that to be possible, even if party-politics does not intervene.
Clacton Kippers = Alf Garnett. Not the segment of the WWC who have traditionally voted Labour.
So how come the Labour vote in Clacton went down from 10,799 in 2010 to 3,957 in the recent by election despite the liberal vote falling from 5,577 to 483?
Eds 35 % by attracting pi**ed off liberals worked really well there didn't it. With the tories still polling nearly 9,000 votes nearly half of Carswells support came from people who voted Labour or Libdem in 2010. (nb turnouts 64% 2010 /51% last week)
Keep the insults coming in, it will work as well as it did in the Euro elections.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. Any such centrally-organised electoral pact may well hurt the Conservatives in other constituencies as it will align the parties closer together.
As I've said passim, if the Conservatives move towards UKIP, then they may gain some UKIP voters, but they will lose some from the centre.
Better for them to fight UKIP and give the electorate a choice.
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I think UKIP did in a few seats at GE 2010? - someone can correct me).
Give the voters a choice.
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
So UKIP is listening to voters is run-down northern towns, and also listening to ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties?
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
Not as broad as you might think.
Labours voters in the north are in many ways quite right wing. Far more so than most of Labour (other than people like Frank Field) realise. However since the franchise was widened in 1918 they have basically had the choice of Labour, the Tory rentier land/mill owners who have always milked them, or occasionally a full blown fascist, so they generally voted Labour.
Now for the first time they have a viable alternative to Labour. It would be fascinating to hear Hugh Gaitskills opinion on Farage were he still alive.
I'm not sure that's a great example: I suspect Hugh Gaitskill would be a Cameroon today.
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. .
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
All political parties are coalitions: the Conservatives were the coalition between the owners (and operators) of capital, and the shires; the Labour Party was the coalition of the working classes, public sector workers, and the defenders of the vulnerable; the Liberal Democrats were a coalition between old social democrats, sandal wearing bearded (basically anti-authority) liberals, and a few 'orange book' libertarians. UKIP is a coalition too: there are libertarians (Richard Tyndall, for example); those who think too much immigration is bad for the working classes (isam); and those who worry about our nations being subsumed in a European superstate.
You've missed off religious/social conservatives, who formerly used to be in the Tory bloc. No longer.
Famously, in that land of FPTP, the Democrats used to be a coalition of Northern liberals and 'Dixiecrats' in the South. The civil rights era put a stop to that.
It just goes to show Cameron's incompetence; campaign for FPTP, but smash your coalition that could give you power.
Twerp.
I agree re FPTP: but I would point out that all the UKIP supporters I personally know are (like Richard Tyndall) atheists.
Anne Soubry is a nasty piece of work. Her abuse to Farage made it clear. Can you imagine if a male politician had described Anne Soubry as someone that looked like they enjoyed a self-sex act? It would have been career ending for him.
She was sitting next to Peter Mandelson when she said it.
I'm not sure that's a great example: I suspect Hugh Gaitskill would be a Cameroon today.
I was thinking of this:
"Gaitskell alienated some of his supporters by his apparent opposition to British membership of the European Economic Community. In a speech to the party conference in October 1962, Gaitskell claimed that Britain's participation in a Federal Europe would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!" He added: "You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought."
There's another problem: UKIP are seen by many parts of the electorate as being beyond the pail. .
The Conservatives have a toxicity problem of their very own, so there are similar sentiments on UKIP's side. UKIP might pick up Conservative votes from an electoral pact, but they would also lose some from former Labour voters and from the previously disillusioned.
Not really. UKIP are seen as a split-party from the Conservatives, so I'm not sure anyone would be surprised at such a move (which I
While Conservatives might like to think UKIP are a splinter group that should get in line, that's very much not the case in run-down northern towns. UKIP actually listens to these voters and accommodate their concerns. The Tories thinks the more disadvantaged parts of the country are places "trying not to die, filled with friendly people trying not to die".
All political parties are coalitions: the Conservatives were the coalition between the owners (and operators) of capital, and the shires; the Labour Party was the coalition of the working classes, public sector workers, and the defenders of the vulnerable; the Liberal Democrats were a coalition between old social democrats, sandal wearing bearded (basically anti-authority) liberals, and a few 'orange book' libertarians. UKIP is a coalition too: there are libertarians (Richard Tyndall, for example); those who think too much immigration is bad for the working classes (isam); and those who worry about our nations being subsumed in a European superstate.
You've missed off religious/social conservatives, who formerly used to be in the Tory bloc. No longer.
Famously, in that land of FPTP, the Democrats used to be a coalition of Northern liberals and 'Dixiecrats' in the South. The civil rights era put a stop to that.
It just goes to show Cameron's incompetence; campaign for FPTP, but smash your coalition that could give you power.
Twerp.
I agree re FPTP: but I would point out that all the UKIP supporters I personally know are (like Richard Tyndall) atheists.
Which rather puts the lie to the statement that they are stupid.
For goodness sake. I'm not talking about a merger. I'm talking about an electoral pact. Outside the 20 seats or so UKIP get given a free run at, the Conservatives wouldn't be affected by UKIP at all, other than be given a chance with their voters. (Voters that you seem to think will go to the Tories if UKIP stood down, although I have my doubts.) The fact you claim things like "takeover" when the two parties would be separate just shows how you are making things up as you go along to sustain your ridiculous argument.
No, if Farage gets to decide who is the leader of the Conservative Party, that is a takeover. He'd demand something else next.
The guy is a wrecker, on an ego trip, prepared to bring about the disaster of a Labour government simply to fuel his ego. He is making demands he knows can't possibly be granted. If he was serious about a deal with the Tories on a referendum, he'd do a deal. There's a perfectly reasonable deal available, in fact it's already there:
- Referendum in 2017, as proposed - Cameron free to try his renegotiation, but UKIP free to say it's a load of hogwash - Eurosceptic Conservatives such as Dan Hannan free to campaign with UKIP on the Out side
That would actually be the best possible, perhaps only, chance of getting the UK to leave the EU in the foreseeable future. If Farage were serious about it, he'd be preparing the Out campaign on that basis.
No, the guy on an ego trip is David Cameron. The man is an old fashioned patriarch, who thinks the plebs should get in line. He actively campaigns to keep an outdated electoral system so that he can then argue it won't allow voters to benefit from their preferred choice and must back him instead. At any stage during his time as leader he could have reached out and listened to others. But instead he prefers to follow a fool's path, like hiring mates like Andy Coulson despite everyone's advice, and to mock fellow right-wingers as "fruitcakes and loons". He creates promises he knows that can't be granted, like taking action on EU immigration, and he is deliberately deceptive about things like vetoing EU treaties and capping the British expense to the EU. Many people are born into privilege and yet remain down-to-Earth and principled. Cameron instead has absorbed the worst of the arrogance and manipulativeness of his class. He will fail to win a majority whether or not UKIP stand against him, and it's his own damn fault. No matter how much his slavish sycophants want to rail at a scapegoat.
Spoken as if lifted from a class-hating socialist's speech.
I'm not sure that's a great example: I suspect Hugh Gaitskill would be a Cameroon today.
I was thinking of this:
"Gaitskell alienated some of his supporters by his apparent opposition to British membership of the European Economic Community. In a speech to the party conference in October 1962, Gaitskell claimed that Britain's participation in a Federal Europe would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!" He added: "You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought."
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverness,_Nairn_and_Lochaber_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
No downside - puts pressure on the EU to compromise too.
Boris said this morning that what is behind UKIP's rise is control. People feel powerless.
And you can see why. Every PM is hamstrung by an ever expanding network of international treaties and commitments that binds him or her.
People want those commitments unwound.
Hence why The House of Lords nearly blocked an AV referendum as it wasn't a manifesto pledge
(Farage: Let’s not forget he was going to take the Tory party out of the European People’s Party in Strasbourg. He hasn’t done so.
Steve Richards: He still says he’s going to.
Nigel Farage: Well he won’t. But he won’t, you know. We all know that he won’t. We know that he won’t.)
2 years later after getting his MEP candidates selected on basis of leaving the EPP, the Conservative MEPs left the EPP. Cameron met his promise. Farage forgot to admit he was wrong...
Now we have Farage saying that Cameron will not meet his promise of a referendum in 2017. Of course Cameron may not be able to do it if EdMilliband is PM because Farage's UKIP let in Labour etc etc.
Well I guess that is one way a Farage forecast is met? Shame about Farage not putting the country's interests first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789617/minister-tells-mps-not-believe-war-hero-bullied-sgt-major-maimed-paratrooper-says-s-unfairly-branded-liar.html
What is really shocking is the lack of anyone of principles inside UKIP challenging these Orwellian shifts of position. Instead the members of UKIP just jump to the tune of the latest switch of policy. Very bizarre and very worrying. Ministry of Truth time?
So a July 2015 referendum is impracticable for a variety of reasons.
Boris was wrong on a few things this morning. He tried to support Cameron's position by saying there should be quotas on EU migrants. He seemed to think this was something Cameron might achieve. It is utter pie in the sky of course as that is one red line the EU as a whole will never agree to. It needs every one of the 28 members to ratify such a change and the majority of them are absolutely committed to that principle (as is the EU as a whole).
It is a shame that when it comes to the EU Boris' critical faculties fail him so badly.
I think you repressed the last time I bet on Ireland to defeat Germany.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/19922447
But this is all preposterous. Aren't we all agreed that there is not a cat in hells chance of such a 'pact'? To be fair, you thought it pretty unimaginable in your first response to RCS.
I hope you got good odds!
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/67-support-the-introduction-of-same-sex-marriage-1.1960929
You may be correct - only last month, Ukip were pledging to block a controversial transatlantic trade deal which critics say could open up the health service to American firms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11123578/Ukip-in-bid-to-supplant-Labour-as-party-of-NHS.html
@JohnRentoul: Re @YvetteCooperMP's leadership ambitions, friend texts: "This is one of those times when you want Ed Balls to actually be Ed Balls."
She's not Ed. That gets her all the points she needs.
That's quite a broad church to satisfy ...
Since the election she's done a great job of holding the Home Secretary to account. That's why Theresa May is one of the favourites to be next Tory leader.
Labour would be stupid not to ditch Ed for her.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-29589776
A wonderful claim from the western land of lawyers: suing because Red Bull doesn't give you wings or increased athletic prowess. Or, in fact, the ability to tell marketing slogans from reality:
http://www.energydrinksettlement.com/
If you look at the seats that UKIP are most successful in in the south they are mostly ones which went Labour under Blair. As such the message won't be that much different north or south. What UKIP are looking for is the common ground not the centre ground and it is the centre ground that by its nature forces parties to face both ways simultaneously
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIPphXRHGxA
Two month campaign and hasta la vista baby.
(oh they're still together BTW!)
And stupid, too. You are supposed to be attracting former supporters back into the fold, not alienating them, and others, further.
Bolton West had Tory/UKIP 48 Lab 40
Southampton Itchen had Tory/UKIP 52 Lab 33
He has been a waste of space since day 1, though the fact that Miliband is behind him on so many levels says more about his failings than DC's strengths.
Of 14 Survation polls carried out in constituencies 7 indicated under 55's outnumbered over 55's in the UKIP, 1 split them 50-50 and 6 had the over 55's outnumbering the under 55's
I compared them with the Tory profiles in the same polls and in 8 of the constituencies Over 55's outnumbered under 55's in the vote and in 6 under 55's outnumbered over 55's
Basically there is little difference between the Tory and UKIP age profile.
UKIP (Constituency ~ Under 55 ~ 55&Over)
Bognor Regis ~ 37% ~ 63%
Folkestone ~ 38% ~ 62%
Clacton ~ 38% ~ 62%
Dudley North ~ 44% ~ 56%
North Thanet ~ 48% ~ 52%
Crewe & Nantwich ~ 49% ~ 51%
Boston & Skegness ~ 54% ~ 46%
Heywood ~ 50% ~ 50%
Great Yarmouth ~ 52% ~ 48%
South Thanet ~ 54% ~ 46%
Rochester ~ 57% ~ 43%
Great Grimsby ~ 57% ~ 43%
Rotherham ~ 58% ~ 42%
Eastleigh ~ 61% ~ 39%
Average % ~ 49.79% ~ 50.21%
Conservatives (Constituency ~ Under 55 ~ 55&Over)
Bognor Regis ~ 41% ~ 59%
Folkestone ~ 58% ~ 42%
Clacton ~ 38% ~ 62%
Dudley North ~ 53% ~ 47%
North Thanet ~ 46% ~ 54%
Crewe & Nantwich ~ 57% ~ 43%
Boston & Skegness ~ 49% ~ 51%
Heywood ~ 60% ~ 40%
Great Yarmouth ~ 40% ~ 60%
South Thanet ~ 49% ~ 51%
Rochester ~ 61% ~ 39%
Great Grimsby ~ 48% ~ 52%
Rotherham ~ 41% ~ 59%
Eastleigh ~ 54% ~ 46%
Average % ~ 49.64% ~ 50.36%
Now in terms of wealth there are Ashcroft marginal polls which again demonstrate the the UKIP vote is distributed fairly evenly between the AB/C1 higher wealth group and the C2/DE group. IIRC the one I looked at had a 48% to %2% split respectively.
Furthermore there is considerable criticism of the social model they used to come up with such a conclusion not least because it only considers income rich wealth and not asset rich wealth. So the older people they identified may not have a big pension but they could be living in a £500,000 house full of their possessions. Such people would be categorised as having a low income and therefore poor but are they if they can live within their means?
Wealth in terms of polling is very much relative and does not consider asset wealth or in fact disposable income.
Anyway I'll leave you to make your own mind up.but I think Goodwin and Ford's original analysis is nonsense.......
What remains to be seen is which seats are looked at by the electorate as Labour-Conservative only and which are Labour-Conservative-UKIP 3-ways.
Isn't that balance (your example between run-down northern towns, and ex-Conservative voters in the Home Counties being just one strand) exactly what all parties should be trying to do. The alternative seems to be to say get stuffed to one or another sections of society.
It does rather seem to be a measure of the paucity of real skilled politicians these days that we are even commenting on the fact that such a balance is necessary.
Edit - and I do of course include most UKIP politicians in that description as well as excluding an honorable few in all parties.
Labours voters in the north are in many ways quite right wing. Far more so than most of Labour (other than people like Frank Field) realise. However since the franchise was widened in 1918 they have basically had the choice of Labour, the Tory rentier land/mill owners who have always milked them, or occasionally a full blown fascist, so they generally voted Labour.
Now for the first time they have a viable alternative to Labour. It would be fascinating to hear Hugh Gaitskills opinion on Farage were he still alive.
Thought that was Labour´s target market?
Old - they still believe Labour today is the Labour of their youth, and the NHS trumps everything
Poor - magic money tree will solve everything,and the "rich" will pick up the tab
Thick - they do not realise Labour despises them. They truly believe Labour will make the economy stronger
Famously, in that land of FPTP, the Democrats used to be a coalition of Northern liberals and 'Dixiecrats' in the South. The civil rights era put a stop to that.
It just goes to show Cameron's incompetence; campaign for FPTP, but smash your coalition that could give you power.
Twerp.
40: Did Not Vote/Others
30: Tory
20: Main Opposition to Tories in particular constituency (so Lib in SW/ Labour in Midlands)
10: Secondary Opposition
Even then, you may have everything perfectly balanced, only for a.n.other competing party to come along and say:" Look! it isn't balanced! We can do better for you!" or "It's balanced, but those over there don't deserve it to be balanced! It's not fair"
And that's if you get the balance correct. Perhaps society is too divided for that to be possible, even if party-politics does not intervene.
Eds 35 % by attracting pi**ed off liberals worked really well there didn't it. With the tories still polling nearly 9,000 votes nearly half of Carswells support came from people who voted Labour or Libdem in 2010. (nb turnouts 64% 2010 /51% last week)
Keep the insults coming in, it will work as well as it did in the Euro elections.
UKIP 3
Lab 2
Con 1
Libdems 0
I know which conference Alf Garnett would have been most at home at!
"Gaitskell alienated some of his supporters by his apparent opposition to British membership of the European Economic Community. In a speech to the party conference in October 1962, Gaitskell claimed that Britain's participation in a Federal Europe would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!" He added: "You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Gaitskell