Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP hit a record 18% from YouGov in the latest daily poll

124

Comments

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    dr_spyn said:

    Cameron not addressing issue of energy prices for energy intensive users - legacy of crap energy policies from Labour. If Scunthorpe closes then what, blame The Greens, Ed Miliband and the other windmill lovers.

    In opposition, the Conservatives voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act. (I think Cameron whipped in favour of it.)
  • isam said:


    You get Tories with a 5 point start ( I take the other side which is UKIP giving up 5 points)

    I'm not sure that is a good deal compared with the 3/1 and Shadsy's bands. I need to sit down with a cup of coffee and a calculator!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    If they hit the low 20s nationally, then it will be a lot more than a handful of seats they could win outright. Even more so if you're willing to look beyond the next election for the long term effect of your vote.
    300+ seats on 22% ???
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:


    If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better

    Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
    I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry

    Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.

    The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that


  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited October 2014

    Kevin Maguire tweets: Sounds like Lord Freud is about to halt the fall in unemployment by losing his job. No 10 demanding an explanation from him

    Ed M was a bit economical with the actualité in misquoting Lord Freud, a former advisor on Welfare to Tony Blair and James Purnell under Brown:

    http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/106453/fresh_freudian_slip?.html
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Itajai said:

    I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.

    I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.

    In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.

    Haha yes.
    Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.
    Crocodile tears from Tories.

    The Tories weren't embarrassed to campaign for the system which produces such results.

    Stop whining.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Sean_F said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    Say, it's a seat which Labour won on 40-45% last time, with mostly white working class voters in the electorate. Places like Grimsby, Rother Valley, Don Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Dudley North, Plymouth Moor View. If the Conservative vote collapses to UKIP, at the same time as UKIP pulling some votes away from Labour and the Lib Dems, that makes a Labour loss more, not less, likely.
    OK that's 6 seats with a few assumptions that things will go UKIPs way. Not enough to swing an election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693

    There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.

    True.

    However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.

    Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.

    To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:

    UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.

    So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.

    http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
    Was it me that said that?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.

    Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove

    Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.

    Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.

    Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693

    Sunil Prasannan‏@Sunil_P2 4m

    #UKIP also first in aggregate vote for GB by-elections in 2013 - Eastleigh and South Shields: UKIP 26.5%, Lab 25.0%.

    https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/522346349850017792/photo/1

    Great twitter feed, Sunil.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited October 2014
    isam said:

    isam said:


    If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better

    Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
    I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry

    Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.

    The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that


    I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    According to the PB Sinister, Cameron is definitely chickening out of the live TV debates. Presumably then, the only downside to Shadsy's evens on the debates not happening is Cameron not being leader at election which can be hedged. Why aren't they piling in to a sure thing?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
    ... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority.
    Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    £2 per hour enough for some disabled people according to the disability minister David Freud
    Of course some other Tory MPs agree, Philip Davies for example stands by his view that those with disabilities might be more able to get a job by working for less than the minimum wage.
  • There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.

    True.

    However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.

    Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.

    To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:

    UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.

    So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.

    http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
    Was it me that said that?
    No, sorry, it was Socrates. Apologies - I must have edited the blockquote section wrongly.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    It must feel very good to be a Kipper nowadays. The sun is definitely shinning on your Party right now.

    I'm still pretty chipper about the Tories prospects for GE2015 too.

    Glad I'm not a Yellow Peril supporter.
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.

    Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove

    Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.

    Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.

    Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,693
    edited October 2014

    There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.

    True.

    However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.

    Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.

    To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:

    UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.

    So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.

    http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
    Was it me that said that?
    No, sorry, it was Socrates. Apologies - I must have edited the blockquote section wrongly.
    No probs. Although, FYI, I don't actually disagree with what Socrates wrote. However, I will be voting Conservative next year.

    Unless I receive confirmation they will decimate defence.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Jonathan said:

    Carswell describes Goldsmith as his honourable friend.

    If he meant Zac, that would be strange bedfellows indeed.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    isam said:

    isam said:


    If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better

    Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
    I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry

    Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.

    The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that


    I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
    You're doing no more than state the obvious. with a five point start of course they are going to be between a range of 2.5% but it is tied to the UKIP score, so its not the same as Shadsy's Markets

    Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then

  • £2 per hour enough for some disabled people according to the disability minister David Freud
    Of course some other Tory MPs agree, Philip Davies for example stands by his view that those with disabilities might be more able to get a job by working for less than the minimum wage.

    Tristram only slightly over-reached by saying it revealed the Tories secretly want ALL the disabled to only be on £2 per hour.

    What a nipple.
  • Godwin's law alert Klaxon

    Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.

    He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html

    Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.

    I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.

    So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?

    Well, quite.

    UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.

    UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.

    I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.

  • David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch

    I am all for kicking ministers, but as I understand it Lord Freud was proposing precisely nothing.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better

    Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
    I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry

    Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.

    The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that


    I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
    Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then

    You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.

    A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
  • oldnatoldnat Posts: 136
    edited October 2014
    rottenborough

    "Incidentally, Scottish Labour are worried Scottish Greens will have more members soon."

    Thay may already have more members than Slab. At the end of their Conference on Sunday, SGP had 7,057 members. Last known SLab figures were 13,135 in September 2010, and there has been considerable hemorrhaging since then.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: Here's how Labour's Lord Freud ambush is playing out. http://t.co/bRHl2HLi8R
  • Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.

    Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.

    "We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11164121/David-Cameron-invokes-dead-son-to-slap-down-minister-who-said-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage.html
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
    ... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority.
    Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
    They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock

  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Just noticed that Tolhurst is in to 4/7, Firth out to 5/4. I think I may have been unfair comparing Firth to Reckless yesterday. She was only a banker briefly and then she went into family law. Reckless was a banker far longer and worked for a city law firm. Not that I think there's actually anything wrong with bankers becoming MPs, just that it may not be electorally favourable.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Mr. Herdson, whilst I share your contempt for the anti-smoking nonsense, don't you mean 'acceptable'?

    I was engaging in a little hyperbole to make the point.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    LDs
    "...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.

    In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.

    This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."

    http://www.ippr.org/juncture/messages-from-the-voters-the-2014-local-and-european-elections

    Has George Galloway defected?
    Perhaps he meant Bradford East?

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/bradfordeast/
    I assume so, though the chances of David Ward holding on there are still probably about the same as Eric Pickles riding next year's Grand National winner.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Herdson, fair enough, I thought you'd just made a slip of the keyboard. My mistake.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Godwin's law alert Klaxon

    Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.

    He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html

    Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.

    I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.

    So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?

    Well, quite.

    UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.

    UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.

    I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
    You are mixing up 2001 and Alien. HAL went mad, Mother in Alien was programmed to dissemble to the crew.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033
    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: Here's how Labour's Lord Freud ambush is playing out. http://t.co/bRHl2HLi8R

    Those on the left will be worried he's about to eat him.

    I'll get my coat....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    Plato said:

    It must feel very good to be a Kipper nowadays. The sun is definitely shinning on your Party right now.

    I'm still pretty chipper about the Tories prospects for GE2015 too.

    Glad I'm not a Yellow Peril supporter.

    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.

    Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove

    Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.

    Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.

    Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.

    Has anyone done a poll anywhere asking if respondents would be more or less likely to vote LD if Clegg wasn’t leader?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:


    If people think 3/1 is value Evens +5 is better

    Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
    I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry

    Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.

    The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that


    I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
    Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then

    You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.

    A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
    I understand why you might think that, and I realise I am banging on about it, but the point is that Richard, who I like a lot, predicted two scenarios in his conclusion

    Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3

    Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions

    Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)

    Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out

    So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?


  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?

    Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Plato said:

    It must feel very good to be a Kipper nowadays. The sun is definitely shinning on your Party right now.

    I'm still pretty chipper about the Tories prospects for GE2015 too.

    Glad I'm not a Yellow Peril supporter.

    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.

    Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove

    Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.

    Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.

    Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.

    Has anyone done a poll anywhere asking if respondents would be more or less likely to vote LD if Clegg wasn’t leader?
    Didn't ICM do some for a chum of Mr Cable's?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. X, I believe the appropriate analogy would be that UKIP are Massinissa (or Numidia, if you prefer) to Conservative Carthage.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    Mr. Dave, the dislikeable Lord Oakeshott, I think.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704
    edited October 2014

    Mr. Dave, the dislikeable Lord Oakeshott, I think.

    Ah yes. Ta. Didn’t they though specifically refer to Vince?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,950
    King Cole, the question was along the lines of Cable being a better leader than Clegg, or voters being more likely to vote Lib Dem if Cable were leader.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    hucks67 said:

    Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?

    Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.

    UKIP have already polled at 25% for westminster VI. +3 is no great leap.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    dr_spyn said:

    Cameron not addressing issue of energy prices for energy intensive users - legacy of crap energy policies from Labour. If Scunthorpe closes then what, blame The Greens, Ed Miliband and the other windmill lovers.

    In opposition, the Conservatives voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act. (I think Cameron whipped in favour of it.)
    Cameron is still a bloody fool on so many levels, and that is another example. But Miliband was keen to kow tow to the windmill lobby that he was happy to sell the steel workers down the river.
  • Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    hucks67 said:

    Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?

    Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.

    They did come close to crossover in 2013, they were within 1-2% back then with survation I think.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    hucks67 said:

    Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?

    Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.

    They got 25% on Sunday!

    Its nowhere near 100/1 I wouldn't think its a all that near a double figure price
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
    ... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority.
    Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
    They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock

    You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.

    Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove

    Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.

    Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.

    Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.

    Those figures of -17 for Cameron and -37 for Clegg are quite reasonable aren't they, going by recent other findings?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE

    Not a surprise, many LD MP's are going to lose their seats, so what's the point of running again if your defeat is certain.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:


    You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.

    A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.

    I understand why you might think that, and I realise I am banging on about it, but the point is that Richard, who I like a lot, predicted two scenarios in his conclusion

    Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3

    Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions

    Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)

    Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out

    So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?


    Well, I tend to agree with RN & OGH that the Tories might do better than currently anticipated. If your evens were the only bet available I might even be tempted by that.

    If I were making a spread, I'd want to allow for bigger risk on the Tory win side than on the UKIP landslide. Maybe UKIP by 6.5-8.5, given the rest of the market. I certainly wouldn't be opening up with a 1 point middle!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I see that the meme of forgetting the deficit reached Prime Minister's Questions today. Well whoever would have guessed that?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    stodge said:


    There's plenty of subsidised catering in the private sector - I presume you and Socrates don't get invited to lunch at the right places or to meet the right people!

    Get invited to a meeting at a bank in Docklands - Nomura's catering is first class and very cheap.

    On the substantive - in many Councils there is a small core of effectively full-time politicians (Cabinet members) who are about and interact with senior officers on a daily basis. Then you have the vast majority of Councillors who sit on Committees but don't do much in truth apart from a) vote the right way and b) get involved in local issues.

    I think it's apocryphal but I was told of a meeting at which a newly-elected Councillor stood up and started ranting about the poor quality of the Council's building maintenance service saying "at no time have they come to fix the roof of my library" at which one of the public gallery shouted out "well, why don't you get up the ladder and fix it yourself as it's your library?"

    In my experience, there are two types of Councillor - those who recognise they are members of a larger body called the Council and those who see themselves as solely the representative of some of the electors of their own patch. Fortunately, the former are growing in number and the latter diminishing.

    I don't particularly rate the guys at Nomura so don't bother with them. In the private sector generally subsidised canteens are tax inefficient and have been largely wound down (my family firm still has one because we see the benefits of encouraging staff to eat together in terms of sharing ideas)

    I'm not sold on the need for full time Councillors. I'd see the role as one for the executive (service delivery) with direction and accountability provided by elected representatives. What do the "effectively full time" councillors do all day that really adds value?
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE

    Con gain Tauton Deane?

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/tauntondeane/
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.

    True.

    However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.

    Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.

    To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:

    UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.

    So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.

    http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
    You're making up a change in position. The video you used to quote from supposedly proving that Farage wanted to have the status of Norway and Switzerland actually said - in the same video - that we'd negotiate a bilateral deal. The Norwegian and Swiss examples were merely used as an illustrative point about EU membership and free trade not being synonymous. It's not UKIP's fault you couldn't understand what was clear as day.

    Also, the idea that we'd have to have free labour to get a trade deal outside the EU is complete and utter nonsense. Korea already, and Canada shortly, will have 95% of the trade access with out any of that.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
    ... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority.
    Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
    They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock

    You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
    What? Where do you get that from?

    We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    Jeremy Browne was talking about possibly becoming leader only a week ago.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Sean_F said:

    Mr. Farage enjoys the best approval rating with Ipsos Mori.

    Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove

    Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.

    Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.

    Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.

    Clearly if a UKIP-Tory deal is to be had, the Tories would have to get rid of Cameron. UKIP won't want to be associated with his toxicity.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Conservatives still 5/6 with Ladbrokes to take Taunton Deane. Fill your boots.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:


    You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.

    A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.

    I understand why you might think that, and I realise I am banging on about it, but the point is that Richard, who I like a lot, predicted two scenarios in his conclusion

    Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3

    Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions

    Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)

    Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out

    So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?


    Well, I tend to agree with RN & OGH that the Tories might do better than currently anticipated. If your evens were the only bet available I might even be tempted by that.

    If I were making a spread, I'd want to allow for bigger risk on the Tory win side than on the UKIP landslide. Maybe UKIP by 6.5-8.5, given the rest of the market. I certainly wouldn't be opening up with a 1 point middle!
    I am just calling a mate to see if I can borrow his bus to drive through that spread!



  • Speedy said:

    Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE

    Not a surprise, many LD MP's are going to lose their seats, so what's the point of running again if your defeat is certain.
    Ladbrokes still showing Tory odds at just 5/6, LD's EVENS

    Not moved yet
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited October 2014
    There is even worse news for the government behind the UKIP record and Farage most popular leader in the Ipsos-Mori poll.
    Satisfaction with the government has slumped to its lowest in more than a year, and economic optimism has also slumped to its worse since the summer of 2013.
    What happens if the economy slumps before the election?
    Tories and LD gets the blame but who benefits, especially if it's another eurocrisis?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    hucks67 said:

    Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.

    Silly comment. Wealth is no bar to Cameron having a view - sadly for him, he's in a better position than most to know what he's talking about.

    Miliband's a millionaire too. Following your logic, by being so rich, he has no right to say anything about the NHS.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534

    Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.

    Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.

    "We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11164121/David-Cameron-invokes-dead-son-to-slap-down-minister-who-said-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage.html

    In cases like that, employers shouldn't have to fund the minimum wage. If they do, the inevitable result is that the people won't be employed and they'll be left to rot without work that they're willing to do.

    A much better option would be for the government to provide a subsidy related to their disability, to be paid to the employer, to enable the individual to receive (at least) the minimum wage. Someone mentioned Philip Davies downthread. I put this idea to him when the issue was last under debate and he was open to it.

    The point is that there is a market rate for any individual in any job. If some, due to disability, cannot do any to a point where their value to an employer is greater than the min wage, they won't be employed. That leaves four options: (1) leave things as they are and give them benefits, which seems to be Labour's preferred solution, (2) set up state-run and -subsidised 'businesses' that can employ them, which has been done but smacks of institutionalism, (3) link the subsidy to the individual, and (4) amend the min wage. None is ideal but to pretend that because the defects of one do not exist in another it means that that other doesn't have defects of its own is disingenuous.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    antifrank said:

    I see that the meme of forgetting the deficit reached Prime Minister's Questions today. Well whoever would have guessed that?

    If there is a rule against obvious point-scoring, what possible future can there be for this site?

    Astonished btw that guardian gave "easy win" to cameron. I thought they were both embarrassingly bad but ed possibly edged it with the freud stuff.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.

    Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.

    "We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11164121/David-Cameron-invokes-dead-son-to-slap-down-minister-who-said-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage.html


    This actually highlights the more fundamental problem with the Minimum Wage: if the work isn't worth it then the business won't employ.

    I spoke to someone recently who used to get their supplies from a manufacturer in the UK. But that manufacturer is now merely an importer as it is cheaper to get them made in China. The manufacturing jobs have left the country, and our balance of payments is worse.

    Another example, I stayed in a hotel overnight recently, and the breakfast had changed. Before there would be young people getting their first job taking orders and bringing you the food. Now it was all self-service; just one person directing customers on what to do and one bringing out food to the central area. Actually, I preferred it, but jobs have gone to reduce the costs.

    The Minimum Wage (whatever the benefits) has a negative impact too, and not only on Mr Scott's young man who just wanted to work.

  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Hacking at The Mirror goes back to 2001, the farce continues.

    Mirror Hacking Good, New International Bad....
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    Speedy said:

    Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE

    Not a surprise, many LD MP's are going to lose their seats, so what's the point of running again if your defeat is certain.
    Ladbrokes still showing Tory odds at just 5/6, LD's EVENS

    Not moved yet
    The constituency poll for his seat of Taunton Deane is:
    CON 34
    LD 30
    UKIP 15
    LAB 14

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    This Freud story revolves around a poor choice of words doesn't it?

    Freud used the term 'not worth' the minimum wage' rather than 'person for whom people are not prepared to pay the minimum wage'
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    hucks67 said:

    Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?

    Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.

    The odds should be way below 100/1 given that UKIP have already polled 25% once and have an invite to an election debate.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,167
    Speedy said:

    Speedy said:

    Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE

    Not a surprise, many LD MP's are going to lose their seats, so what's the point of running again if your defeat is certain.
    Ladbrokes still showing Tory odds at just 5/6, LD's EVENS

    Not moved yet
    The constituency poll for his seat of Taunton Deane is:
    CON 34
    LD 30
    UKIP 15
    LAB 14

    LDs could squeeze the Labour vote more if they field a social democrat rather than an orange booker.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Andrea Parma ‏@AndreaParma82 5s5 seconds ago
    Jeremy Browne becomes the 10th LibDem to announce intentions to stand down in 2015 GE.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    hucks67 said:

    Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.

    One would have thought that speaking from a position of personnel experience, eminently qualifies any MP to speak out on such matters – wealth doesn’t come into it.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,704

    Speedy said:

    Wow - Jezza Browne standing down at GE

    Not a surprise, many LD MP's are going to lose their seats, so what's the point of running again if your defeat is certain.
    Ladbrokes still showing Tory odds at just 5/6, LD's EVENS

    Not moved yet
    Severance pay? Only Telegraph showing it though. Wishful thinking?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited October 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    I see that the meme of forgetting the deficit reached Prime Minister's Questions today. Well whoever would have guessed that?

    If there is a rule against obvious point-scoring, what possible future can there be for this site?

    Astonished btw that guardian gave "easy win" to cameron. I thought they were both embarrassingly bad but ed possibly edged it with the freud stuff.

    I agree - far from an easy win - at best 4:2 to Cameron, but much closer to a score draw......

    Oh dear, Carswell on R4 just referred to "Osbrowne Economics"..........and I thought he was a grown up....
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    edited October 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    Godwin's law alert Klaxon

    Neil Kinnock has admitted that Labour is still seen by the public as “the incompetent party” when it comes to the economy.

    He compared Chancellor George Osborne with the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels for the “big lie” that Labour was “not fit to govern”.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/neil-kinnock-accuses-osborne-of-behaving-like-goebbels-9795636.html

    Kinnochio's appearance reminds us that we really dodged a bullet when he blew the General Election in 1992.

    I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.

    So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?

    Well, quite.

    UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.

    UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.

    I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
    You are mixing up 2001 and Alien. HAL went mad, Mother in Alien was programmed to dissemble to the crew.
    No I'm not!

    HAL was told of the mission's purpose but the crew were not, until after he wigged out and the one survivor switched him off.

    In Alien MUTHR just ran the ship. The science officer, Ash the android, was the one in receipt of Special Order 937, which said Gather specimen, crew expendable.

    HAL's goals were to be reliable but also to lie, hence paranoid fugue. Ash's goal was to protect the alien, "all other priorities rescinded", so there was never any conflict of objectives. Bummer for everyone else of course.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    I see that the meme of forgetting the deficit reached Prime Minister's Questions today. Well whoever would have guessed that?

    If there is a rule against obvious point-scoring, what possible future can there be for this site?

    Astonished btw that guardian gave "easy win" to cameron. I thought they were both embarrassingly bad but ed possibly edged it with the freud stuff.

    I agree - far from an easy win - at best 4:2 to Cameron, but much closer to a score draw......

    Oh dear, Carswell on R4 just referred to "Osbrowne Economics"..........and I thought he was a grown up....
    Is Carswell tim? Sounds like something tim would say ;-)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.

    Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.

    "We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11164121/David-Cameron-invokes-dead-son-to-slap-down-minister-who-said-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage.html

    In cases like that, employers shouldn't have to fund the minimum wage. If they do, the inevitable result is that the people won't be employed and they'll be left to rot without work that they're willing to do.

    A much better option would be for the government to provide a subsidy related to their disability, to be paid to the employer, to enable the individual to receive (at least) the minimum wage. Someone mentioned Philip Davies downthread. I put this idea to him when the issue was last under debate and he was open to it.

    The point is that there is a market rate for any individual in any job. If some, due to disability, cannot do any to a point where their value to an employer is greater than the min wage, they won't be employed. That leaves four options: (1) leave things as they are and give them benefits, which seems to be Labour's preferred solution, (2) set up state-run and -subsidised 'businesses' that can employ them, which has been done but smacks of institutionalism, (3) link the subsidy to the individual, and (4) amend the min wage. None is ideal but to pretend that because the defects of one do not exist in another it means that that other doesn't have defects of its own is disingenuous.
    The faux outrage/deliberate misunderstanding of Tristram Hunt on Daily Politics is absolutely sickening. Everything that I hate about politics
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited October 2014
    taffys">This Freud story revolves around a poor choice of words doesn't it?

    Freud used the term 'not worth' the minimum wage' rather than 'person for whom people are not prepared to pay the minimum wage'

    Yup - but Labour are trying to spin it that the nasty party wants secretly to pay ALL the disabled £2 per hour....
  • 10 LibDems have announced retirement so far

    6 are over 65 year old. 2 are between 60 and 65. 2 are young (Teather and Browne).

    In terms of lenght of service

    pre 1997: 4 (Ming, Beith, Bruce, Foster)
    1997: 2 (Heath and Stunell)
    2001: Brooke
    2003: Teather
    2005: Browne
    2010: Swales from Redcar
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2014
    dr_spyn said:

    Hacking at The Mirror goes back to 2001, the farce continues.

    Mirror Hacking Good, New International Bad....

    Graham Johnson worked at the Sunday Mirror between 1997 and 2005

    Piers Morgan was Mirror editor between 1996 – 2004

    Hmm, I wonder if the Guardian will do a ‘Coulson’ on him?...
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?

    If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
    Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.

    Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
    Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves.
    Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part.
    Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful.
    Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
    If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
    ... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority.
    Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
    They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock

    You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
    What? Where do you get that from?

    We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
    OK, so your assumption is that the sitting MP is not in the running, that it's between the 2010 2nd placed Party (Labour) and the 2010 5th placed party (UKIP) - almost 30% behind.
    If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,033
    Speedy said:

    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?

    Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    I see that the meme of forgetting the deficit reached Prime Minister's Questions today. Well whoever would have guessed that?

    If there is a rule against obvious point-scoring, what possible future can there be for this site?

    Astonished btw that guardian gave "easy win" to cameron. I thought they were both embarrassingly bad but ed possibly edged it with the freud stuff.

    I thought it was a narrow win for Cameron even though he avoids the actual questions
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    RobD said:

    Speedy said:

    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?

    Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
    Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?

    And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    I see that the meme of forgetting the deficit reached Prime Minister's Questions today. Well whoever would have guessed that?

    If there is a rule against obvious point-scoring, what possible future can there be for this site?

    Astonished btw that guardian gave "easy win" to cameron. I thought they were both embarrassingly bad but ed possibly edged it with the freud stuff.

    I thought it was a narrow win for Cameron even though he avoids the actual questions
    You know he's a politician, right? Get's paid for it and everything.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited October 2014
    Speedy said:

    RobD said:

    Speedy said:

    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?

    Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
    Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?

    And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
    1983, 1987.

    EDIT: Massive umemployment, but GDP rising. Depends on definition of 'doldrum'.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    antifrank said:

    That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?

    Why would he leave his party if he is standing down, except if there is a scandal or he's planning to defect.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited October 2014
    antifrank said:

    That resignation letter of Jeremy Browne's is ambiguous - is he also leaving the Liberal Democrats?

    Not according to the Telegraph: - "Jeremy Browne, the Liberal Democrat MP for Taunton, said he is standing down because he feels "my race is run".

    Mr Browne, who was sacked in the last Liberal Democrat reshuffle, has insisted he will not defect to another party."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11164432/Ex-Liberal-Democrat-Home-Office-minister-Jeremy-Browne-to-quit-as-MP.html

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    RobD said:

    Speedy said:

    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?

    Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
    Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?

    And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
    1983, 1987.
    1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jeremy Browne has stated for the avoidance of doubt that he's not joining another party. What's unclear is whether he's leaving the Lib Dems.
  • Speedy said:

    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?

    The mood was noticeably more downbeat than it has been for a while among the folk I saw last week when I was in San Francisco and New York. Not despondent, but not bubbling.

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Speedy said:

    Anorak said:

    Speedy said:

    RobD said:

    Speedy said:

    Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September.
    So far not looking good for the american economy.
    Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?

    Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
    Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?

    And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
    1983, 1987.
    1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)
    I've edited my post. It's not as black-and-white as you make out.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited October 2014

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?


    .
    .
    .
    You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
    What? Where do you get that from?

    We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
    OK, so your assumption is that the sitting MP is not in the running, that it's between the 2010 2nd placed Party (Labour) and the 2010 5th placed party (UKIP) - almost 30% behind.
    If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
    As it happens the Euros and locals have been quite a good indicator of the three by elections since I think (Newark, Clacton & Heywood and Middleton)

    But on this specific seat...

    I live half a mile away, and know the area quite well... not necessarily a big deal, but UKIP won a ward in my constituency that is very similar to Thurrock last year so I decided to look into it more closely

    I made an attempt at modelling each constituency 18 months ago based on 2010 results and it came out as one of the top 10 seats for UKIP. Doesn't really mean much, I could be mistaken . But I have been in the odds compiling game 15 years, so should know vaguely what I am doing

    I backed UKIP to win the seat at 16/1, UKIP then won the Euros and local elections in the seat quite easily

    Ashcroft polling (from 4 or 5 months ago when UKIP were nowhere near as strong) has them well ahead

    UKIP have one of their top men (Head of policy) who is also a local lad, as the candidate, and have been canvassing the area extensively for 6 months already

    I have spoken with the UKIP people in the area and they say its a two horse race.. the Tories aren't even really trying

    UKIP are now 5/4 to win the seat, and I think its still value

    If they win Thursdays by election, it is more or less all over

    Feel free to disagree, but I am pretty confident that voting Tory in Thurrock makes a Tory government less likely
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Most commentators do give Miliband the win, and certainly he's established the political story of the day rather than anything else Cameron might have liked it to be:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/15/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog

    Given the intensity of comments from Cameron down it's hard to see Freud not resigning - though they're unsure if he's actually in the country. Perhaps he's joined Assange in the Embassy...
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    LOL - that Lost Deposit icon could've been a Winning Here diamond - just the wrong sort of winning...
This discussion has been closed.