Is Basildon South and East Thurrock looked on as a potential UKIP gain? Low Tory vote 44%, Good Labour (31%) but not enough to make it a 2-way marginal.
I'm on UKIP in this one. @isam reckons its a goer.
@TOPPING If a 25 year old turns up at an interview along with an equally qualified 63 year old, who will the employers be most likely to hire? Or should the 63 year old be able to offer them their services at below minimum wage? The principles are the same are they not?
To do what job? Chief Accountant at Saga Holidays?
It is or should be all about ability to do the job. What (dear God I hope) Freud was saying is that in the PersonA/PersonB scenario, the state levels the playing field. The employer pays for and gets £6.50/hr worth of value from Person A and pays for and gets, say, £2/hr worth of value from Person B with the State topping up Person B's wages so that Person B makes £6.50/hr in wages also.
I'm sure that model is fraught with flaws but that seems to be the gist of what Freud was saying, wasn't it?
That wasn't what Freud was talking about.
He was asked a question regarding a man so mentally damaged that any work that would pay minimum wage was beyond him
Someone who could not hope to be employed in normal circumstances, but enjoyed the feeling of getting out of the house and contributing somehow, to feel worthwhile
The person asking the question said he let the guy do some gardening for him and paid him less than the min wage by making him a director. But could the govt make up the difference in benefits?
Why he didn't just pay the fellow in cash I don't know.
So glorified charity, not to be compared with workforce competition or exploitation
I've no time for Cameron who can be as shallow as they come, but he doesn't usually add gurning to his repertoire as EdM does.
I was also bemused by a range of supposedly intelligent politicians leaping to the screens to add their childish shrill to the comments. This isn't a party political point as they all do it.
Is Basildon South and East Thurrock looked on as a potential UKIP gain? Low Tory vote 44%, Good Labour (31%) but not enough to make it a 2-way marginal.
In the early days, I thought Labour had a chance here and bet accordingly. But since they have shown in by-election after by-election that they're opting out of such seats, I've resigned myself to losing my money.
O/T As always, take with a dose of sodium chloride.
"Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy 100MW reactor small enough to fit on back of a truck Cleaner energy source could be in use within 10 years"
There was a very interesting interview at ~6.30am on ITV's Good Morning with the father of a disabled son in his 30s. Currently this son does 1 day a week of voluntary work plus college which will come to an end soon. His son's problem is that his attention span is about 30 minutes, is forgetful and tires easily.
The possibility of stocking supermarket shelves was aired and the father felt that his son would require a lot of supervision which he acknowledged would be an extra cost to the employer. Also he said that his son would be delighted to be able to work about 25 hours a week for £50 as it would give him a purpose in life.
Whilst Lord Freud may have used his words incorrectly, he felt that Lord Freud had identified a true problem, where disabled people who require greater supervision than normal should not fall under the minimum wage trap but be paid a small wage, when the really important matter was to give these people a new purpose, incentive and direction in lifestyle and not feel useless.
I believe that Remploy used to 'employ' a lot of such people, but read that some of their factories have closed - perhaps a rethink required.
As an aside, we had a graduate intern for the summer 3 months who did his M.Sc dissertation with us. Whilst we paid for his living expenses (but not beer money), we estimate that our lost consultancy time due to having to supervise him was a 35% of his time here - so about one month for which our lost consultancy income was about £20,000.
As he acknowledged himself, Lord Freud's mistake was to tie this to the minimum wage in the first place. It's an unrelated issue.
But is there a legal issue at present regarding payment below the minimum wage?
Our IT guy has a physical disability but there is nothing wrong with his brain. So we give him the use of one of our pool cars (including fuel) and a mobile phone - that is his requested method of payment for the odd days a month he helps us out.
At the crux, which all the outraged lefties are missing (deliberately so in most cases,) is the fact that if Person A and Person B turn up for a job interview and Person B has a disability (relevant to that job) then an employer might choose to employ Person A as his productivity will be superior.
Until there is a law that mandates employing people with disabilities over those without disabilities (relevant to the job) then that issue will exist.
Lord Freud, from what I have read, did not (choose to) explain in sufficient depth the critical issue.
or the soundbite used (as the full transcript contains a lot more than appeared in PMQT) did not contain the full story.
Maybe this is one of UKIPs policies that won't prove popular once it's more widely known." I merely add John Vidal's thoughts, the editor of The Guardian's Environment section, that shale gas/fracking threatens 120 Conservative formerly safe seats directly including most of the front bench.
The election is now five months away. UKIP just has to jump on the antifracking/shale gas horse before the Conservatives put it back in the stable, or miss out on 100 juicy Conservative seats. You can only surmise that Farage's meetings with Rupert Murdoch included a deal to support fracking in return for coverage and support in The Sun. EIther that or UKIP's not interested in winning more than a handful of seats, and has been promised support up to holding the balance of power in the Commons, but not to replace any of the two major parties. The system is clearly heavily controlled by manipulation of one kind or another. Farage might yet surprise us, but for some reason he seems unaware of the golden electoral opportunity he's sitting on.
UKIP to fade or a permanent change in the polls?The nearest we have is The LD/SD "protest vote" experience.Lots of by election success but abject failure to translate that into GE success.That changed at the 97 election part of the story was local election strength.Many of the seats won were where the Lib Dem had control of the local council. UKIP doesn't not that base at present. So the most likely scenario is still that even if the vote share stays around the current high teens it will be very difficult to translate that into many GE seats. There is however another some difference between the LD precedent and UKIP .First, LD by election successes were generally in mid term time to fade.UKIP success is within 7 months of the GE.Much now depends on Rochester.A Tory hold and less likelihood of further defections to UKIP.If there are no more UKIP by election victories the fade in share would occur although with another boost possible from taking part in the TV debates.By election victories close to the GE could lead to a share going into the GE of c 20%. On balance My view is that with a Rochester Tory hold and no more by election success the UKIP share would move back towards 12%.-15% not sufficient to deliver many if any seats.
" Do Labour REALLY think there was a vicious intent behind what was being discussed?
No. It's manufactured. Pathetic and obnoxious."
Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
As it happens in this instance the really clumsy move was by Esther Mcvey who pulled the rug from under her 'colleegue' with an adroitness of which Francis Urquhart would have been proud
For those of you who don't yet realise why shale gas/fracking is such a potent political topic where it's proposed locally, I give you The Fracking Dirty Dozen contained within this post on my blog -
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate. - Colorado School of Public Health
2. Global Warming: Up to 9% of methane produced from fracking seeps into the atmosphere. Methane is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02, over the next 20 years -Dr. Ingraffea: Dwight C Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University
3. Ozone: Ground level ozone in some rural places, where there is fracking, is worse than ozone levels in downtown LA. -Wyoming Department of Health, http://www.health.wyo.gov/phsd/ehl/index.html
4. A gag order in the state of Colorado prevents your doctor from informing you if you have fracking fluids in your blood, making it much harder for you to get well. -COGCC, cogcc.state.co.us/forms/pdf_forms/form35.pdf
5. Poisoning Water: More than 5000 spills have been registered with COGCC (CO State website) and approximately 43% have contaminated groundwater. -COGCC Website 6. Water Depletion: Each well uses approximately 3-8 million gallons of water over its lifetime. -Dr. Jeffery Time
7. Toxic Chemicals: Of the 300-odd chemicals presumed in fracking fluid, 40% are endocrine disrupting, 1/3 are suspected carcinogens and 1/3 are developmental toxicants. Over 60% of these chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system. -Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, and Bachran M. 2011. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
@TOPPING If a 25 year old turns up at an interview along with an equally qualified 63 year old, who will the employers be most likely to hire? Or should the 63 year old be able to offer them their services at below minimum wage? The principles are the same are they not?
To do what job? Chief Accountant at Saga Holidays?
It is or should be all about ability to do the job. What (dear God I hope) Freud was saying is that in the PersonA/PersonB scenario, the state levels the playing field. The employer pays for and gets £6.50/hr worth of value from Person A and pays for and gets, say, £2/hr worth of value from Person B with the State topping up Person B's wages so that Person B makes £6.50/hr in wages also.
I'm sure that model is fraught with flaws but that seems to be the gist of what Freud was saying, wasn't it?
That wasn't what Freud was talking about.
He was asked a question regarding a man so mentally damaged that any work that would pay minimum wage was beyond him
Someone who could not hope to be employed in normal circumstances, but enjoyed the feeling of getting out of the house and contributing somehow, to feel worthwhile
The person asking the question said he let the guy do some gardening for him and paid him less than the min wage by making him a director. But could the govt make up the difference in benefits?
Why he didn't just pay the fellow in cash I don't know.
So glorified charity, not to be compared with workforce competition or exploitation
Didn't the Government via Remploy used to employ exactly this type of person?
UKIP to fade or a permanent change in the polls?The nearest we have is The LD/SD "protest vote" experience.Lots of by election success but abject failure to translate that into GE success.That changed at the 97 election part of the story was local election strength.Many of the seats won were where the Lib Dem had control of the local council. UKIP doesn't not that base at present. So the most likely scenario is still that even if the vote share stays around the current high teens it will be very difficult to translate that into many GE seats. There is however another some difference between the LD precedent and UKIP .First, LD by election successes were generally in mid term time to fade.UKIP success is within 7 months of the GE.Much now depends on Rochester.A Tory hold and less likelihood of further defections to UKIP.If there are no more UKIP by election victories the fade in share would occur although with another boost possible from taking part in the TV debates.By election victories close to the GE could lead to a share going into the GE of c 20%. On balance My view is that with a Rochester Tory hold and no more by election success the UKIP share would move back towards 12%.-15% not sufficient to deliver many if any seats.
While UKIP haven't won control of any councils yet, they have 'won' the annual local elections within various constituencies, so their support is concentrated enough for them to win seats.
" Do Labour REALLY think there was a vicious intent behind what was being discussed?
No. It's manufactured. Pathetic and obnoxious."
Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
As it happens in this instance the really clumsy move was by Esther Mcvey who pulled the rug from under her 'colleegue' with an adroitness of which Francis Urquhart would have been proud
Firstly, there's nothing honourable about someone being hounded out of office for a mis-speak. The verb is well-chosen: it's a pack blood sport engaged in for the entertainment of the participants, nothing more. It's one of the least attractive parts of politics and one that puts off well-meaning, thoughtful individuals, or at the least, limits their advancement and hence contribution.
And no, Byers didn't have to resign for what his advisor said. It did lead to his leaving office but only because (1) he refused to sack her and (2) he committed several more errors later. It was a cumulative effect, not an instant one.
Back on topic, YG used to be less favourable to UKIP than other posters for ork as switchers don't give the parties enough basic credibility on another party's natural issue.
With respect Nick, I think this is just what leftists say because t, but we're going to keep immigration running at the same levels" is what pisses people off.
I agree. What is driving UKIP poll scores is a belief that the other parties are not listening and/or do not care. Full stop. That's why Dave's new move on EU immigration is unlikely to bear much fruit. If he really meant it, why wait until a few months before a GE to start talking about it? He has had four and a half years. The only thing that has changed - the only emergency, if you like - is that UKIP is the biggest obstacle to him staying in power and he feels he has to do something about it.
I've long lost any sense of affinity or trust in Cameron at this point, as I suspect most Conservative-UKIP movers have. That's why if I'm going to be won back, I need pretty concrete, wriggle-free commitments: specific mechanisms for reducing immigration, specific demands for repatriation, specific actions to improve civil liberties. Cameron is at last starting to get this, judging by this morning's announcement. But we need more detail.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
"Fool me once, you're the fool. Fool me twice...um...er... you can't get fooled again!"
......My old company Novartis in Switzerland had a scheme which I always felt reflected very well on them: long-serving staff who developed mental illness would be transferred to a budget which wasn't charged to the department cost centre. For instance, I had a secretary with chronic depression. I couldn't rely on her coming every day, but when she came (3-4 days a week) she was excellent, and she cost my budget nothing. So I put aside filing etc. for her to do when she was there, and we were both happy. The key thing was that the budget was SECRET - talking about it was a disciplinary offence, and telling someone they were on it was a serious breach. So she felt she was a valued normal member of staff - and felt guilty about not being able to work every day, but we were able to reassure her that we thought she was so good it was OK. The company got zero benefit out of it in PR - they just felt it was the right thing to do. It was a factor in making me want to keep working for them - I never looked for a job with another company simply because I liked them for this and other reasons.
NickMP - What a great way to treat people by Novartis. It is easier for large companies to do this but few do and I regard Novartis in a better light after reading this.
"Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
No. He didn't even have to resign for delivering a statement to Parliament titled "The resignation of Martin Sixsmith" at a time when Martin Sixsmith hadn't resigned. Looking back now, that was a canary in the coalmine for what happened the following year.
Cameron is looking like he is under pressure from all sides and thinks that he cannot win in May 2015. He may feel this, but perhaps he should consider that when the election campaign starts, the electorate are faced with a choice, not just a polling question. Quite offen the polls start to change and what looked like a losing position can change around. 2015 is going to be a strange election with Lib Dem leaking votes and UKIP possibly obtaining atleast fives times the vote percentage they achieved in 2010.
I don't think I would be putting any money on UKIP achieving 15% or more of the votes in 2015. I still think they will be nearer to 10%, which would be a brilliant result for them. UKIP have not published their manifesto yet and I suspect that once people have had a chance of studying it, that they will go back to the party they supported in 2010. If you are a Labour voter, would you vote UKIP purely on EU/immigration issues, when most of UKIP's other policies are Tory policies from decades ago.
For those of you who don't yet realise why shale gas/fracking is such a potent political topic where it's proposed locally, I give you The Fracking Dirty Dozen contained within this post on my blog -
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate. - Colorado School of Public Health
2. Global Warming: Up to 9% of methane produced from fracking seeps into the atmosphere. Methane is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02, over the next 20 years -Dr. Ingraffea: Dwight C Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University
3. Ozone: Ground level ozone in some rural places, where there is fracking, is worse than ozone levels in downtown LA. -Wyoming Department of Health, http://www.health.wyo.gov/phsd/ehl/index.html
4. A gag order in the state of Colorado prevents your doctor from informing you if you have fracking fluids in your blood, making it much harder for you to get well. -COGCC, cogcc.state.co.us/forms/pdf_forms/form35.pdf
5. Poisoning Water: More than 5000 spills have been registered with COGCC (CO State website) and approximately 43% have contaminated groundwater. -COGCC Website 6. Water Depletion: Each well uses approximately 3-8 million gallons of water over its lifetime. -Dr. Jeffery Time
7. Toxic Chemicals: Of the 300-odd chemicals presumed in fracking fluid, 40% are endocrine disrupting, 1/3 are suspected carcinogens and 1/3 are developmental toxicants. Over 60% of these chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system. -Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, and Bachran M. 2011. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
The problem with all this is that it's done from studies in the US, where regulation is far more lax than here.
There was a piece on Look North the other day about concerns in rural Yorkshire, because there are so many (mostly unmapped) mines and fear that fracking could lead to collapses, potentially taking buildings down (as I said, it's a rural concern, so that'd be bad luck rather than guaranteed).
It's staggering we might actually lack sufficient electricity in a decade or two because of the intransigent idiocy of Labour and (to a lesser but still reprehensible extent) the Coalition.
O/T As always, take with a dose of sodium chloride.
"Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy 100MW reactor small enough to fit on back of a truck Cleaner energy source could be in use within 10 years"
UKIP had a list of 11 potential seats in August (Independent)
Grimsby (Labour): I would suspect pretty strong Anti EU feeling with regards to fishing quotas etc - but there were a lot of Liberal voters. I rate this rather marginal as a 3
Sittingborne and Sheppey (Cons): Solidly conservative with no chance for Labour. A solid voting base in 2010 is a good starting point: rated as 4
Aylesbury (Cons): This is bluer than the deep blue sea and IMHO too big a mountain. rated 0
East Worthing and Shoreham (Cons): IMHO - too much work and too many liberals. rated 0
Great Yarmouth (Cons): Very good chance unless Labour/Tory turn it into a marginal during the campaign. 43 -33 and not many liberals. Rated as a 9.
Thurrock (Cons): This is more likely to go Labour than UKIP. Rated as a 3.
Boston and Skegness (Cons): High UKIP base to work with, Labour have no chance so could switch in droves. Definitely rated as a 9
South Thanet (Cons): This would be rated as a '4' other than the name of the UKIP candidate.
North Thanet (Cons): Too Blue - UKIP will come up short. 0
Eastleigh (Lib Dem): obviously a target but there is a difference between being in the media spotlight and being one of 650.
Portsmouth South (Independent): Independents are tricky - but presumably the Lib Dems are well organised 0.
This is based on Liberal Democrats not switching to UKIP but heavy TV by the major party when they can't win the seat.
Is Basildon South and East Thurrock looked on as a potential UKIP gain? Low Tory vote 44%, Good Labour (31%) but not enough to make it a 2-way marginal.
I'm on UKIP in this one. @isam reckons its a goer.
I think 7/2 is still good value
It has almost the same profile as Thurrock, in terms of euro and 2010 results. My system actually makes it a stringer seat for Ukip than Thurrock
A bit of inside info, I think the candidate will be a bit less Ukip than we are used to..
OGH - What about inviting our northern britons from Scotland to write a few articles on what they forecast each party will get in MPs in Scotland at GE2015? Will the SNP with a new Leader get a honeymoon boost and take their vote shares from the Scots Parliament into similar or better vote shares in Westminster?
It will be interesting if and when DC introduces his immigration policy to observe the reaction of the LibDems who are so pro-immigration. Will they just be anti or really through all their toys out of the pram and leave the coalition? Of course I am presuming that the policy to be announced will be a Conservative policy but not a Coalition one, but I could well be wrong.
There was a very interesting interview at ~6.30am on ITV's Good Morning with the father of a disabled son in his 30s. Currently this son does 1 day a week of voluntary work plus college which will come to an end soon. His son's problem is that his attention span is about 30 minutes, is forgetful and tires easily.
I believe that Remploy used to 'employ' a lot of such people, but read that some of their factories have closed - perhaps a rethink required.
The problem with Remploy was how expensive it was and how few people it helped.
It will be interesting if and when DC introduces his immigration policy to observe the reaction of the LibDems who are so pro-immigration. Will they just be anti or really through all their toys out of the pram and leave the coalition? Of course I am presuming that the policy to be announced will be a Conservative policy but not a Coalition one, but I could well be wrong.
The LibDems have been consistent on the EU from the get-go - they like it and want the UK to remain firmly involved. Dave is all over the place. His agenda is entirely driven by the need to win back Tory UKIPers.
Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
False memory on your part:
- Jo Moore was his political adviser (SPAD) not secretary, and Byers didn't resign - He didn't resign either when he lied about Sixsmith being sacked 6 months later - He finally resigned in May 2002 after being criticised by the Labour dominated transport select committee and ongoing scrutiny of his decision to allow Richard Desmond to buy the Daily Express
On topic: Another way of looking at this is this: in October 2009, the third party in the polls was regularly scoring around 19%, and ended up with a big boost right at the end of the parliament, giving them 23% in the general election.
So in that sense the UKIP phenomenon is nothing new, just a transfer of the 'none of the above' vote from one brand to another.
......My old company Novartis in Switzerland had a scheme which I always felt reflected very well on them: long-serving staff who developed mental illness would be transferred to a budget which wasn't charged to the department cost centre. For instance, I had a secretary with chronic depression. I couldn't rely on her coming every day, but when she came (3-4 days a week) she was excellent, and she cost my budget nothing. So I put aside filing etc. for her to do when she was there, and we were both happy. The key thing was that the budget was SECRET - talking about it was a disciplinary offence, and telling someone they were on it was a serious breach. So she felt she was a valued normal member of staff - and felt guilty about not being able to work every day, but we were able to reassure her that we thought she was so good it was OK. The company got zero benefit out of it in PR - they just felt it was the right thing to do. It was a factor in making me want to keep working for them - I never looked for a job with another company simply because I liked them for this and other reasons.
NickMP - What a great way to treat people by Novartis. It is easier for large companies to do this but few do and I regard Novartis in a better light after reading this.
Give credit to Sandoz, not Novartis.
A lot has changed (quite a bit for the better, some for the worse) since Joe because CEO and Vasella was defenestrated
"Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
No. He didn't even have to resign for delivering a statement to Parliament titled "The resignation of Martin Sixsmith" at a time when Martin Sixsmith hadn't resigned. Looking back now, that was a canary in the coalmine for what happened the following year.
The LibDems have been consistent on the EU from the get-go - they like it and want the UK to remain firmly involved. Dave is all over the place. His agenda is entirely driven by the need to win back Tory UKIPers.
He's not all over the place at all. He has been 100% consistent both on the EU and on immigration. In the case of the EU, he has always said he wants reform but favours staying in. In the case of immigration he has always said that his goal is to get it back down to sensible levels.
OGH - What about inviting our northern britons from Scotland to write a few articles on what they forecast each party will get in MPs in Scotland at GE2015? Will the SNP with a new Leader get a honeymoon boost and take their vote shares from the Scots Parliament into similar or better vote shares in Westminster?
SNP are going great guns, but will find it difficult to convert that into taking seats off Labour.
Ahh, good old FPTP, thanks Dave!
If Gordon keeps holding the Tories feet to the fire on Devomore that should help shore up the Labour vote too.
On topic: Another way of looking at this is this: in October 2009, the third party in the polls was regularly scoring around 19%, and ended up with a big boost right at the end of the parliament, giving them 23% in the general election.
So in that sense the UKIP phenomenon is nothing new, just a transfer of the 'none of the above' vote from one brand to another.
James Kirkup had a piece yesterday with some nice pie charts of 2010 voters.
On topic: Another way of looking at this is this: in October 2009, the third party in the polls was regularly scoring around 19%, and ended up with a big boost right at the end of the parliament, giving them 23% in the general election.
So in that sense the UKIP phenomenon is nothing new, just a transfer of the 'none of the above' vote from one brand to another.
James Kirkup had a piece yesterday with some nice pie charts of 2010 voters.
The LibDems have been consistent on the EU from the get-go - they like it and want the UK to remain firmly involved. Dave is all over the place. His agenda is entirely driven by the need to win back Tory UKIPers.
He's not all over the place at all. He has been 100% consistent both on the EU and on immigration. In the case of the EU, he has always said he wants reform but favours staying in. In the case of immigration he has always said that his goal is to get it back down to sensible levels.
Of course. It is entirely coincidental that he announces major policy moves relating to Europe at times when UKIP are gaining support and winning positive headlines.
Now, let's talk about some magic beans that I think you may be interested in purchasing ...
For rating UKIP prospects, I remain of the view that it is easier for UKIP to get to 33% than to 45%. So three horse races (or 2 1/2 horse races) look altogether better prospects in general than two horse races.
Then there's the question of targeting. UKIP have a big decision to make: do they shoot for the moon and risk underperforming in seat tallies or do they focus their energies on a few seats? UKIP do not have great resources. My guess it that they will eventually try to focus on their targets. Any seat that is not a target will be much less likely to fall to the purple team, because the ground game will be important. So the next question is how many seats will UKIP seriously target (and which are they)?
Their party management to date has been ropey: they've already had embarrassments with candidates in two of their potentially strongest seats (Great Yarmouth and Camborne & Redruth). I shall be kind and not lump the former Clacton candidate in the same category. Given how few seats UKIP stand a real chance in, this is pretty appalling party management. Now this may not matter too much if the public is just going to stick two fingers up at Westminster, but if two candidates in major target seats have proved embarrassing, the chances are that there will be others who undermine the party's chances in their constituencies by giving their opponents free campaign material.
As things stand now, I urge caution before backing UKIP directly in too many seats (as opposed to factoring a strong UKIP performance into the more mainstream Labour/Conservative battles).
But so much of what happens next hinges on the result in Rochester & Strood, and the fall-out from it.
Of course. It is entirely coincidental that he announces major policy moves relating to Europe at times when UKIP are gaining support and winning positive headlines.
Now, let's talk about some magic beans that I think you may be interested in purchasing ...
He's announcing policy as the election approaches. Seems reasonable enough.
In any case you ignored my point, which was that your statement was incorrect.
"Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
No. He didn't even have to resign for delivering a statement to Parliament titled "The resignation of Martin Sixsmith" at a time when Martin Sixsmith hadn't resigned. Looking back now, that was a canary in the coalmine for what happened the following year.
OGH - What about inviting our northern britons from Scotland to write a few articles on what they forecast each party will get in MPs in Scotland at GE2015? Will the SNP with a new Leader get a honeymoon boost and take their vote shares from the Scots Parliament into similar or better vote shares in Westminster?
Playing around with UKPR's seat calculaor and using the YG average for Oct for the Scottish subsample (dangerous I know) which is:
Cons:17; LAB: 28; LD: 7; SNP: 38; UKIP: 8 and Green:2, the seats are:
Socrates - regulation? The fracking and shale gas drilling processes to be used here are exactly the same ones as are used in the USA. The same operators. Somehow I don't see regulation making any difference. Drilling spills everywhere in the world. Look deeper into it.
JENNIFER - I have been puzzled by the Rockefeller's decision to pull out of their core oil interests and go all out for alternative energy.
Owen Patterson, who is apparently, a 'climate-change denier', is also pushing that agenda.
For some reason they are calling it 'clean' energy now.
TAP - Their new business will be water supply. They are using fracking to destroy the water reserves of the developed world, and will truck in water and charge it at the same price as oil is now. They won't need an oil business any more as water will be much simpler, far more profitable, and politically a powerful control device. If they don't like you, they'll cut you off. That's what shale gas is really all about. Water is the new oil.
Are there actually real people here who truly will admit that they are somehow staggeringly stupid enough to have idiotically fallen for Miliband's ridiculously obvious and obviously deliberate misinterpretation of Freud's very simple and somewhat worthy intended message?
Anyone who continues to criticise Freud or the Tories on this basis, I shall have to conclude, is a moron. Criticise him for being foolish enough to say something so easily twisted, but to honestly contort that into an attack on his values requires a sub-par intellect. And I'm sure none of you would want to be dishonest.
UKIP had a list of 11 potential seats in August (Independent)
Grimsby (Labour): I would suspect pretty strong Anti EU feeling with regards to fishing quotas etc - but there were a lot of Liberal voters. I rate this rather marginal as a 3
Sittingborne and Sheppey (Cons): Solidly conservative with no chance for Labour. A solid voting base in 2010 is a good starting point: rated as 4
Aylesbury (Cons): This is bluer than the deep blue sea and IMHO too big a mountain. rated 0
East Worthing and Shoreham (Cons): IMHO - too much work and too many liberals. rated 0
Great Yarmouth (Cons): Very good chance unless Labour/Tory turn it into a marginal during the campaign. 43 -33 and not many liberals. Rated as a 9.
Thurrock (Cons): This is more likely to go Labour than UKIP. Rated as a 3.
Boston and Skegness (Cons): High UKIP base to work with, Labour have no chance so could switch in droves. Definitely rated as a 9
South Thanet (Cons): This would be rated as a '4' other than the name of the UKIP candidate.
North Thanet (Cons): Too Blue - UKIP will come up short. 0
Eastleigh (Lib Dem): obviously a target but there is a difference between being in the media spotlight and being one of 650.
Portsmouth South (Independent): Independents are tricky - but presumably the Lib Dems are well organised 0.
This is based on Liberal Democrats not switching to UKIP but heavy TV by the major party when they can't win the seat.
I'm hoping that Mr Hancock will stand in Portsmouth South as an independent in 2015. No idea who will win that one.
UKIP had a list of 11 potential seats in August (Independent)
Grimsby (Labour): I would suspect pretty strong Anti EU feeling with regards to fishing quotas etc - but there were a lot of Liberal voters. I rate this rather marginal as a 3
Sittingborne and Sheppey (Cons): Solidly conservative with no chance for Labour. A solid voting base in 2010 is a good starting point: rated as 4
Aylesbury (Cons): This is bluer than the deep blue sea and IMHO too big a mountain. rated 0
East Worthing and Shoreham (Cons): IMHO - too much work and too many liberals. rated 0
Great Yarmouth (Cons): Very good chance unless Labour/Tory turn it into a marginal during the campaign. 43 -33 and not many liberals. Rated as a 9.
Thurrock (Cons): This is more likely to go Labour than UKIP. Rated as a 3.
Boston and Skegness (Cons): High UKIP base to work with, Labour have no chance so could switch in droves. Definitely rated as a 9
South Thanet (Cons): This would be rated as a '4' other than the name of the UKIP candidate.
North Thanet (Cons): Too Blue - UKIP will come up short. 0
Eastleigh (Lib Dem): obviously a target but there is a difference between being in the media spotlight and being one of 650.
Portsmouth South (Independent): Independents are tricky - but presumably the Lib Dems are well organised 0.
This is based on Liberal Democrats not switching to UKIP but heavy TV by the major party when they can't win the seat.
I'm hoping that Mr Hancock will stand in Portsmouth South as an independent in 2015. No idea who will win that one.
Given that Mike Hancock and the new Lib Dem candidate are BFFs, I've regretfully ruled that prospect out, though it would have been enormous fun.
On topic: Another way of looking at this is this: in October 2009, the third party in the polls was regularly scoring around 19%, and ended up with a big boost right at the end of the parliament, giving them 23% in the general election.
So in that sense the UKIP phenomenon is nothing new, just a transfer of the 'none of the above' vote from one brand to another.
James Kirkup had a piece yesterday with some nice pie charts of 2010 voters.
On topic: Another way of looking at this is this: in October 2009, the third party in the polls was regularly scoring around 19%, and ended up with a big boost right at the end of the parliament, giving them 23% in the general election.
So in that sense the UKIP phenomenon is nothing new, just a transfer of the 'none of the above' vote from one brand to another.
James Kirkup had a piece yesterday with some nice pie charts of 2010 voters.
Are there actually real people here who truly will admit that they are somehow staggeringly stupid enough to have idiotically fallen for Miliband's ridiculously obvious and obviously deliberate misinterpretation of Freud's very simple and somewhat worthy intended message?
Anyone who continues to criticise Freud or the Tories on this basis, I shall have to conclude, is a moron. Criticise him for being foolish enough to say something so easily twisted, but to honestly contort that into an attack on his values requires a sub-par intellect. And I'm sure none of you would want to be dishonest.
I don't believe anyone is that stupid, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just being cynical, dishonest and vicious.
The LibDems have been consistent on the EU from the get-go - they like it and want the UK to remain firmly involved. Dave is all over the place. His agenda is entirely driven by the need to win back Tory UKIPers.
He's not all over the place at all. He has been 100% consistent both on the EU and on immigration. In the case of the EU, he has always said he wants reform but favours staying in. In the case of immigration he has always said that his goal is to get it back down to sensible levels.
He looks like the slippery salesman he is saying anything to keep his job... People who worked with him know he doesn't mean a word of it, hence they join Ukip
'Cameron allowed Marr to keep him on Europe because he thinks he can win back disgruntled Tory voters who are threatening to vote Ukip in the local and European elections on 22 May and the Newark by-election on 5 June.
But he backed himself into a corner when he admitted to Marr that he was unwilling to curb EU freedom of movement rules - despite concerns that figures out this week will show that 30,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have come to Britain since controls were lifted at the start of the year.
Cameron's point was that EU citizens should continue to be able to move to another country to get work - a right enjoyed by many Brits going aboard as well as foreigners coming here – but not to gain better benefits. '
Of course. It is entirely coincidental that he announces major policy moves relating to Europe at times when UKIP are gaining support and winning positive headlines.
Now, let's talk about some magic beans that I think you may be interested in purchasing ...
He's announcing policy as the election approaches. Seems reasonable enough.
In any case you ignored my point, which was that your statement was incorrect.
No, you don't agree with my opinion. That does not make it incorrect.
In the same way I do not agree with you that Dave is merely announcing policy in the run-up to the election. He is being forced into making announcements because UKIP is eating into the Tory vote. Just as he was forced into making a referendum pledge because it was the only way he felt he could keep right wing Tory MPs onside. He is all over the place because he is responding to agendas set by others rather than setting the agenda himself. It is a display of profound weakness. And it will fool no-one except loyal Tories.
UKIP had a list of 11 potential seats in August (Independent)
Grimsby (Labour): I would suspect pretty strong Anti EU feeling with regards to fishing quotas etc - but there were a lot of Liberal voters. I rate this rather marginal as a 3
Sittingborne and Sheppey (Cons): Solidly conservative with no chance for Labour. A solid voting base in 2010 is a good starting point: rated as 4
Aylesbury (Cons): This is bluer than the deep blue sea and IMHO too big a mountain. rated 0
East Worthing and Shoreham (Cons): IMHO - too much work and too many liberals. rated 0
Great Yarmouth (Cons): Very good chance unless Labour/Tory turn it into a marginal during the campaign. 43 -33 and not many liberals. Rated as a 9.
Thurrock (Cons): This is more likely to go Labour than UKIP. Rated as a 3.
Boston and Skegness (Cons): High UKIP base to work with, Labour have no chance so could switch in droves. Definitely rated as a 9
South Thanet (Cons): This would be rated as a '4' other than the name of the UKIP candidate.
North Thanet (Cons): Too Blue - UKIP will come up short. 0
Eastleigh (Lib Dem): obviously a target but there is a difference between being in the media spotlight and being one of 650.
Portsmouth South (Independent): Independents are tricky - but presumably the Lib Dems are well organised 0.
This is based on Liberal Democrats not switching to UKIP but heavy TV by the major party when they can't win the seat.
I'm hoping that Mr Hancock will stand in Portsmouth South as an independent in 2015. No idea who will win that one.
Given that Mike Hancock and the new Lib Dem candidate are BFFs, I've regretfully ruled that prospect out, though it would have been enormous fun.
I believe Mr Hancock stands to get ~£30k if he contests the seat. He doesn't strike me as that selfless a mate.
Their party management to date has been ropey: they've already had embarrassments with candidates in two of their potentially strongest seats (Great Yarmouth and Camborne & Redruth). I shall be kind and not lump the former Clacton candidate in the same category. Given how few seats UKIP stand a real chance in, this is pretty appalling party management. Now this may not matter too much if the public is just going to stick two fingers up at Westminster, but if two candidates in major target seats have proved embarrassing, the chances are that there will be others who undermine the party's chances in their constituencies by giving their opponents free campaign material.
I think what you are missing is their focus on candidates having some kind of local affiliation (birth, residence, etc) to the seats they stand in.
I'm not a fan of this approach being strictly applied - although the SPAD parachute model is daft as well - because someone should be able to represent the concerns of, say, Dover, if they grew up in Great Yarmouth: it's more about ensuring someone *understands* the issues that their constituents face.
But if they have made the decision to go for the strict local approach, then they have made a strategic decision. You can disagree with them on the decision, but it's unreasonable to complain that they have done something badly when they've decided not to do it at all.
I'd prefer not to have to frack. But it may be the only way forward, at least for the while. Green energy - wind, wave, solar, tidal etc - cannot currently deliver the energy we need, yet alone at a price that makes us competitive.
Amen to that.
http://www.worldwatch.org/renewables-becoming-cost-competitive-fossil-fuels-us Of course oil is getting cheaper at the moment. Surely we need to factor in the political and financial risks of being dependant on Russia and the Middle East for some of our energy needs. Climate change will also cost us and cause us problems.
It's fine to say we must factor in the political and financial risks of fossil fuels. But if you do say that, then you must also factor in the political and financial risks of green energy.
Since we in the UK cannot generate enough non-nuclear green energy to meet demand in even the best circumstances using current tech, 100% green energy would mean dropping demand significantly. The political and financial risks of that are obvious.
No, you don't agree with my opinion. That does not make it incorrect.
In the same way I do not agree with you that Dave is merely announcing policy in the run-up to the election. He is being forced into making announcements because UKIP is eating into the Tory vote. Just as he was forced into making a referendum pledge because it was the only way he felt he could keep right wing Tory MPs onside. He is all over the place because he is responding to agendas set by others rather than setting the agenda himself. It is a display of profound weakness. And it will fool no-one except loyal Tories.
We will have to agree to disagree.
You are talking palpable nonsense. How can he be 'all over the place' when he hasn't changed his views? He was talking about immigration before the last election. That is a fact, is it not?
Are there actually real people here who truly will admit that they are somehow staggeringly stupid enough to have idiotically fallen for Miliband's ridiculously obvious and obviously deliberate misinterpretation of Freud's very simple and somewhat worthy intended message?
Anyone who continues to criticise Freud or the Tories on this basis, I shall have to conclude, is a moron. Criticise him for being foolish enough to say something so easily twisted, but to honestly contort that into an attack on his values requires a sub-par intellect. And I'm sure none of you would want to be dishonest.
I don't believe anyone is that stupid, so I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are just being cynical, dishonest and vicious.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Of course. It is entirely coincidental that he announces major policy moves relating to Europe at times when UKIP are gaining support and winning positive headlines.
Now, let's talk about some magic beans that I think you may be interested in purchasing ...
He's announcing policy as the election approaches. Seems reasonable enough.
In any case you ignored my point, which was that your statement was incorrect.
No, you don't agree with my opinion. That does not make it incorrect.
In the same way I do not agree with you that Dave is merely announcing policy in the run-up to the election. He is being forced into making announcements because UKIP is eating into the Tory vote. Just as he was forced into making a referendum pledge because it was the only way he felt he could keep right wing Tory MPs onside. He is all over the place because he is responding to agendas set by others rather than setting the agenda himself. It is a display of profound weakness. And it will fool no-one except loyal Tories.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I think you are both right
All of Cameron's detailed announcements are consistent with the broad brush principles that @Richard_Nabavi believes he holds.
But the timing of the announcements is clearly driven by UKIP (tick, @SouthamObserver)
What we don't know - but may speculate - is whether he would have announced these specific promises if it hadn't been for UKIP
No, you don't agree with my opinion. That does not make it incorrect.
In the same way I do not agree with you that Dave is merely announcing policy in the run-up to the election. He is being forced into making announcements because UKIP is eating into the Tory vote. Just as he was forced into making a referendum pledge because it was the only way he felt he could keep right wing Tory MPs onside. He is all over the place because he is responding to agendas set by others rather than setting the agenda himself. It is a display of profound weakness. And it will fool no-one except loyal Tories.
We will have to agree to disagree.
You are talking palpable nonsense. How can he be 'all over the place' when he hasn't changed his views? He was talking about immigration before the last election. That is a fact, is it not?
Any chance of pointing out the bits in the last Tory manifesto which promised an In/Out EU referendum and curbs on freedom of movement for EU citizens?
Their party management to date has been ropey: they've already had embarrassments with candidates in two of their potentially strongest seats (Great Yarmouth and Camborne & Redruth). I shall be kind and not lump the former Clacton candidate in the same category. Given how few seats UKIP stand a real chance in, this is pretty appalling party management. Now this may not matter too much if the public is just going to stick two fingers up at Westminster, but if two candidates in major target seats have proved embarrassing, the chances are that there will be others who undermine the party's chances in their constituencies by giving their opponents free campaign material.
I think what you are missing is their focus on candidates having some kind of local affiliation (birth, residence, etc) to the seats they stand in.
I'm not a fan of this approach being strictly applied - although the SPAD parachute model is daft as well - because someone should be able to represent the concerns of, say, Dover, if they grew up in Great Yarmouth: it's more about ensuring someone *understands* the issues that their constituents face.
But if they have made the decision to go for the strict local approach, then they have made a strategic decision. You can disagree with them on the decision, but it's unreasonable to complain that they have done something badly when they've decided not to do it at all.
Losing two candidates in major target seats because they've been convicted of criminal offences is crazy. It's one thing seeking to make UKIP the local party for local people (and indeed, now you mention it, kippers do seem to resemble the denizens of Royston Vasey), it's another thing not having any quality control at all.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishonest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
UKIP had a list of 11 potential seats in August (Independent)
Grimsby (Labour): I would suspect pretty strong Anti EU feeling with regards to fishing quotas etc - but there were a lot of Liberal voters. I rate this rather marginal as a 3
Sittingborne and Sheppey (Cons): Solidly conservative with no chance for Labour. A solid voting base in 2010 is a good starting point: rated as 4
Aylesbury (Cons): This is bluer than the deep blue sea and IMHO too big a mountain. rated 0
East Worthing and Shoreham (Cons): IMHO - too much work and too many liberals. rated 0
Great Yarmouth (Cons): Very good chance unless Labour/Tory turn it into a marginal during the campaign. 43 -33 and not many liberals. Rated as a 9.
Thurrock (Cons): This is more likely to go Labour than UKIP. Rated as a 3.
Boston and Skegness (Cons): High UKIP base to work with, Labour have no chance so could switch in droves. Definitely rated as a 9
South Thanet (Cons): This would be rated as a '4' other than the name of the UKIP candidate.
North Thanet (Cons): Too Blue - UKIP will come up short. 0
Eastleigh (Lib Dem): obviously a target but there is a difference between being in the media spotlight and being one of 650.
Portsmouth South (Independent): Independents are tricky - but presumably the Lib Dems are well organised 0.
This is based on Liberal Democrats not switching to UKIP but heavy TV by the major party when they can't win the seat.
I live 200 yards outside Eastleigh constituency. It has 44 councillors of whom 40 are LibDem http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/the-council/councillors--meetings/councillors.aspx They have been increasing their representation over the years in good and bad times and are well dug in. UKIP's chance was the By-Election, if they couldn't get it then I doubt they'd win in the GE.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Any chance of pointing out the bits in the last Tory manifesto which promised an In/Out EU referendum and curbs on freedom of movement for EU citizens?
As Charles points out, policy develops within the consistent principles. You wouldn't expect the 2015 manifesto to be a reprint of the 2010 manifesto, would you?
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
I'd prefer not to have to frack. But it may be the only way forward, at least for the while. Green energy - wind, wave, solar, tidal etc - cannot currently deliver the energy we need, yet alone at a price that makes us competitive.
Amen to that.
http://www.worldwatch.org/renewables-becoming-cost-competitive-fossil-fuels-us Of course oil is getting cheaper at the moment. Surely we need to factor in the political and financial risks of being dependant on Russia and the Middle East for some of our energy needs. Climate change will also cost us and cause us problems.
It's fine to say we must factor in the political and financial risks of fossil fuels. But if you do say that, then you must also factor in the political and financial risks of green energy.
Since we in the UK cannot generate enough non-nuclear green energy to meet demand in even the best circumstances using current tech, 100% green energy would mean dropping demand significantly. The political and financial risks of that are obvious.
Who said 100%? Straw Man alert.
So what figure were you thinking of?
As an aside, Miliband pledged 100% carbon-free electricity at his recent conference.
"Of course the purples are enjoying the aftermath of their by election successes a week ago and as is being widely pointed the SDP was doing this in the early 80s only to fade at GE1983"
This is only partly true. The SDP increased the 'centre' vote from the 13% or so that the Liberals had been polling through 1980 up to the high twenties within about three months of forming at the beginning of 1981. They then held steady at about that level for most of the year before surging again to around 40% in the autumn. That surge was short-lived and the share started falling early in 1982 (before the Falklands War broke out - it was back to about 30% by that time), flattening out in the low-twenties for the second half of that year. It then fluctuated with some volatility in 1983 but ended up in the mid-twenties.
Conclusion: the Alliance's figures for most of the parliament after they formed were not a bad guide to where they finished up, apart from a short-lived surge. In particular, their polling six months out from the election was a decent guide. Yes, they did fall back from their peak (doesn't everyone, unless they time their peak for polling day?), but they *didn't* decline in the run-up to polling day. In fact, they put on about 5% during the course of the campaign.
But you would expect that from Clegg as he is desperate to create dividing lines between the LDs and the Cons as he tries to get out of the ever faster whirlpool of declining LD support - except for their loyal idealists - but all lifebelts seem to be out of reach as they only will support policies wanted by the electorate.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Indeed. As ever, it is OK when the Tories do it.
If calling a tax that is exclusively associated with death a death tax is the best you've got then I'd have to hazard a guess that you don't understand equivalence. Have you any actual, specific examples of aTory taking a quote out of context in this way?
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Indeed. As ever, it is OK when the Tories do it.
Did the Tories do it when Labour were proposing something similar in 2003?
Any chance of pointing out the bits in the last Tory manifesto which promised an In/Out EU referendum and curbs on freedom of movement for EU citizens?
As Charles points out, policy develops within the consistent principles. You wouldn't expect the 2015 manifesto to be a reprint of the 2010 manifesto, would you?
So we agree that Cameron was not talking about curbing freedom of movement for EU citizens or an In/Out referendum before the last GE. Indeed, he was not talking about either until UKIP became something of a problem and his right wing began agitating. It must be that that he was going to, but he just forgot and UKIP helpfully reminded him. Now about those beans ...
Any chance of pointing out the bits in the last Tory manifesto which promised an In/Out EU referendum and curbs on freedom of movement for EU citizens?
As Charles points out, policy develops within the consistent principles. You wouldn't expect the 2015 manifesto to be a reprint of the 2010 manifesto, would you?
Earlier this year on the Marr show, Cameron ruled out limiting the free movement of people, saying he would stop paying benefits instead
Seeing as most people that move here from the eu are not benefit claimants it is barely worth doing for all the moral clout he will lose
So if he is going further, and putting restrictions on the amount of people that can work here, the that is entirely inconsistent and a move that can only be explained by being frightened of Ukip
It goes without saying that he isn't doing it out if any passion or conviction. It's just anything to try and win votes
Greenest govt ever/ green crap Section 28/ gay marriage Apartheid SA visit/ Mandela gushing No too down re organisation/ top down organisation
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
The ultimate end game of negative campaigning. Even if you do succesfully slime one opposition party, if you have not created a positive vision of why people should also vote for you, then they will go and look for another opposition party. We saw this at the last election with the LD surge.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Indeed. As ever, it is OK when the Tories do it.
If calling a tax that is exclusively associated with death a death tax is the best you've got then I'd have to hazard a guess that you don't understand equivalence. Have you any actual, specific examples of aTory taking a quote out of context in this way?
if you do not understand why the cases are the same then I cannot help you, I'm afraid.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Indeed. As ever, it is OK when the Tories do it.
The stark conclusion from this debate, is that Labour are very keen to make a political point but are very unwilling to discuss how policy/law can be changed to accommodate these unfortunate people who have almost been shut our of attempting to have a normal life by unthinking legislation. Perhaps they are not allowed to be present in Islington!
A bit like EV4EL - try to pushing a recognised problem into the long grass in the hope that it will disappear. Just shows a front bench that is bereft of any constructive ideas.
@isam - Not at all. The problem isn't whether we want to put restrictions on EU immigration, it is whether it is going to be possible to do so. I'm sceptical (other than in respect of benefits, where I am sure good progress will be made), but it's worth a try. The main thing which has changed is that there seems to be a little bit of support amongst at least some of our EU friends on this now - the UK is not the only country encountering the problem.
In any case, you can't have it both ways. People bitch that 'politicians aren't listening', and then bitch when they do listen. Which do you want?
I see oil is still falling. WTI approaching the psychological $80 mark. In completely unrelated other news, Putin rattles several sabres and attends a soviet-style military parade in Serbia.
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
I've noticed a definite change in "respectable" circles of people being prepared to hear UKIP out where they would have once just rolled their eyes.
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
I've noticed a definite change in "respectable" circles of people being prepared to hear UKIP out where they would have once just rolled their eyes.
Polling near 20% is one in five. Meaning that if you're in a room with 4 socialists, you're the kipper.
Absolutely right. And they are doing what all partisan people do when they take quotes out of context or conflate ideas and opinions with policies in order to discomfit their opponents. See Labour's Death Tax, for example.
Yes, but the difference is that this was a particularly nasty and morally bankrupt example. It was a disgraceful attack by Labour on the dignity of the most severely disabled people in order to score a cheap and dishionest smear. It is evidence that avoiding a Labour government is a moral as well as an economic imperative.
Indeed. As ever, it is OK when the Tories do it.
The stark conclusion from this debate, is that Labour are very keen to make a political point but are very unwilling to discuss how policy/law can be changed to accommodate these unfortunate people who have almost been shut our of attempting to have a normal life by unthinking legislation. Perhaps they are not allowed to be present in Islington!
A bit like EV4EL - try to pushing a recognised problem into the long grass in the hope that it will disappear. Just shows a front bench that is bereft of any constructive ideas.
Is Labour being opportunistic? Absolutely. Does it lack a coherent set of credible, comprehensible policies? Without question. Was its use of the Freud quotes a new and depraved low in British politics? No. Misrepresenting the statements, views and writings of opponents is standard fare in this country and has been for years.
The stark conclusion from this debate, is that Labour are very keen to make a political point but are very unwilling to discuss how policy/law can be changed
Yesterday's 6pm BBC TV news prefaced the story by saying accordiing to information provided to the BBC by the Labour Party. Now they're even giving up the pretence of being unbiased. Even C4 news at 7pm had a more neutral presentation.
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
Sky had a voxpop with a couple of teenage girls the other day.
SKY: What do you think of UKIP then?
GIRLS: We think its really good. We think its a change, and it can just do different...
In my latest battleground polling I have looked at Conservative-held seats with Labour in second place which on paper are safer than those in my previous research. This round includes eleven constituencies with majorities of between 1,328 or 3.1% (Brighton Kemptown) and 2,420 or 4.8% (Gloucester).
The overall swing from Conservative to Labour in this group of seats was 5%, but as in previous rounds there was some variation between constituencies: from 2% in Pudsey (a tie) and Gloucester (Tory hold) to 6.5% in Hastings & Rye and 8% in Brentford & Isleworth.
Though nine of these seats would change hands on the basis of these snapshots Labour will not feel comfortable in many of them. Though Labour led by ten points in Enfield North and 13 points in Brentford, they were ahead by less than five points in Brighton Kemptown, Hove, Halesowen & Rowley Regis and Nuneaton.
Swings to Labour appear to be related to the UKIP presence, which varied significantly from one seat to the next. Nigel Farage’s party scored just 7% in Brentford & Isleworth (where Labour’s share was up eleven points since 2010), but 24% in Halesowen (where Labour were down by two points, though still just ahead)
The stark conclusion from this debate, is that Labour are very keen to make a political point but are very unwilling to discuss how policy/law can be changed to accommodate these unfortunate people who have almost been shut our of attempting to have a normal life by unthinking legislation. Perhaps they are not allowed to be present in Islington!
But that would mean Ed would have to have a policy, and that can't happen...
Wibble, reset policy fault, reset Ed - insert sharp object into ear now...
Gosh, a five per cent swing in the marginals, at a time when Labour are leading in the main polling by 3% having lost by 7% last time. It's almost as if the marginals aren't that different [when taken in aggregate] after all.
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
I've noticed a definite change in "respectable" circles of people being prepared to hear UKIP out where they would have once just rolled their eyes.
I've wondered if the LDs 2014 poll collapse might in part be caused by the notion of supporting the LDs becoming rarer, and perceived as a more eccentric choice.
@isam - Not at all. The problem isn't whether we want to put restrictions on EU immigration, it is whether it is going to be possible to do so. I'm sceptical (other than in respect of benefits, where I am sure good progress will be made), but it's worth a try. The main thing which has changed is that there seems to be a little bit of support amongst at least some of our EU friends on this now - the UK is not the only country encountering the problem.
In any case, you can't have it both ways. People bitch that 'politicians aren't listening', and then bitch when they do listen. Which do you want?
To your last point , fair enough but I would rather vote for someone who actually believes in it
If the country on the whole takes a turn toward liking immigration and the EU, I would be very disappointed in Farage if he started extolling their virtues just to keep ukip high in the polls... To me that is what Cameron has done...
Let's say I vote for Cameron, then in a years time the polls say, actually we like lots of uncontrolled immigration? I have no doubt Cameron will drop any idea of controlling it and leaved everyone who voted for him on a false prospectus disappointed
I have noticed people starting to talk about UKIP. Even the beautician I use mentioned that "... that Nigel Farage seems to talk a lot of sense ..." which rather surprised me coming from a widow in her 50s. I made some non-committal comments to see where she was going and it seems that she is simply fed-up with the main parties and UKIP seems the most reasonable alternative to her.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
The ultimate end game of negative campaigning. Even if you do succesfully slime one opposition party, if you have not created a positive vision of why people should also vote for you, then they will go and look for another opposition party. We saw this at the last election with the LD surge.
I saw an interviewer interrupt Mr Shapps in his 'a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour' spiel, and push him to make a positive case for the Conservatives. He could't do it!
I've noticed a definite change in "respectable" circles of people being prepared to hear UKIP out where they would have once just rolled their eyes.
Being "respectable" enough to be listened to will change UKIP just as being in govt had noticeable effects on the Lib Dems. Long cherished goals and principles will be re-examined, the most extreme jettisoned and UKIP's "respectibilty" enhanced further as the mainstream of politics sucks them in.
In ten years they should be as useless as all the main parties and therefore highly respectable....
In my latest battleground polling I have looked at Conservative-held seats with Labour in second place which on paper are safer than those in my previous research. This round includes eleven constituencies with majorities of between 1,328 or 3.1% (Brighton Kemptown) and 2,420 or 4.8% (Gloucester).
The overall swing from Conservative to Labour in this group of seats was 5%, but as in previous rounds there was some variation between constituencies: from 2% in Pudsey (a tie) and Gloucester (Tory hold) to 6.5% in Hastings & Rye and 8% in Brentford & Isleworth.
Though nine of these seats would change hands on the basis of these snapshots Labour will not feel comfortable in many of them. Though Labour led by ten points in Enfield North and 13 points in Brentford, they were ahead by less than five points in Brighton Kemptown, Hove, Halesowen & Rowley Regis and Nuneaton.
Swings to Labour appear to be related to the UKIP presence, which varied significantly from one seat to the next. Nigel Farage’s party scored just 7% in Brentford & Isleworth (where Labour’s share was up eleven points since 2010), but 24% in Halesowen (where Labour were down by two points, though still just ahead)
Gosh, a five per cent swing in the marginals, at a time when Labour are leading in the main polling by 3% having lost by 7% last time. It's almost as if the marginals aren't that different [when taken in aggregate] after all.
These are the second tier marginal, aren't they?
Every single poll of whatever kind seems to be pointing towards another hung parliament.
Comments
He was asked a question regarding a man so mentally damaged that any work that would pay minimum wage was beyond him
Someone who could not hope to be employed in normal circumstances, but enjoyed the feeling of getting out of the house and contributing somehow, to feel worthwhile
The person asking the question said he let the guy do some gardening for him and paid him less than the min wage by making him a director. But could the govt make up the difference in benefits?
Why he didn't just pay the fellow in cash I don't know.
So glorified charity, not to be compared with workforce competition or exploitation
Although I can't see why they prompt for anyone
I've no time for Cameron who can be as shallow as they come, but he doesn't usually add gurning to his repertoire as EdM does.
I was also bemused by a range of supposedly intelligent politicians leaping to the screens to add their childish shrill to the comments. This isn't a party political point as they all do it.
As always, take with a dose of sodium chloride.
"Lockheed announces breakthrough on nuclear fusion energy
100MW reactor small enough to fit on back of a truck
Cleaner energy source could be in use within 10 years"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/lockheed-breakthrough-nuclear-fusion-energy
"To add a bit of politics, it seems that the massage guy UKIPs Roger Helmer is very much in favour of fracking.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/lets-get-real-about-fracking/
One driver for the Green's advance may be worries about fracking and apparently it's worrying for the Tories
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10828543/Government-drive-for-fracking-losing-thousands-of-Tory-votes-Lord-Howell-warns.html
Maybe this is one of UKIPs policies that won't prove popular once it's more widely known."
I merely add John Vidal's thoughts, the editor of The Guardian's Environment section, that shale gas/fracking threatens 120 Conservative formerly safe seats directly including most of the front bench.
The election is now five months away. UKIP just has to jump on the antifracking/shale gas horse before the Conservatives put it back in the stable, or miss out on 100 juicy Conservative seats. You can only surmise that Farage's meetings with Rupert Murdoch included a deal to support fracking in return for coverage and support in The Sun. EIther that or UKIP's not interested in winning more than a handful of seats, and has been promised support up to holding the balance of power in the Commons, but not to replace any of the two major parties. The system is clearly heavily controlled by manipulation of one kind or another. Farage might yet surprise us, but for some reason he seems unaware of the golden electoral opportunity he's sitting on.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/feb/04/davidbrindle
So the most likely scenario is still that even if the vote share stays around the current high teens it will be very difficult to translate that into many GE seats.
There is however another some difference between the LD precedent and UKIP .First, LD by election successes were generally in mid term time to fade.UKIP success is within 7 months of the GE.Much now depends on Rochester.A Tory hold and less likelihood of further defections to UKIP.If there are no more UKIP by election victories the fade in share would occur although with another boost possible from taking part in the TV debates.By election victories close to the GE could lead to a share going into the GE of c 20%.
On balance My view is that with a Rochester Tory hold and no more by election success the UKIP share would move back towards 12%.-15% not sufficient to deliver many if any seats.
" Do Labour REALLY think there was a vicious intent behind what was being discussed?
No. It's manufactured. Pathetic and obnoxious."
Of course not and of course it is but we have an honourable tradition of ministers being hounded out of office for inadvertently saying something clumsy. Didn't Stephen Byers have to resign because his SECRETARY said 'a good time to bury bad news'? And what about Peter Mandelson.......
As it happens in this instance the really clumsy move was by Esther Mcvey who pulled the rug from under her 'colleegue' with an adroitness of which Francis Urquhart would have been proud
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/sack-roger-helmer-ukips-policies-are.html
1. Health: People that live within a 1/2 mile radius of a fracking well have a 66% higher cancer rate.
- Colorado School of Public Health
2. Global Warming: Up to 9% of methane produced from fracking seeps into the atmosphere. Methane is 100x more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02, over the next 20 years
-Dr. Ingraffea: Dwight C Baum Professor of Engineering at Cornell University
3. Ozone: Ground level ozone in some rural places, where there is fracking, is worse than ozone levels in downtown LA.
-Wyoming Department of Health, http://www.health.wyo.gov/phsd/ehl/index.html
4. A gag order in the state of Colorado prevents your doctor from informing you if you have fracking fluids in your blood, making it much harder for you to get well.
-COGCC, cogcc.state.co.us/forms/pdf_forms/form35.pdf
5. Poisoning Water: More than 5000 spills have been registered with COGCC (CO State website) and approximately 43% have contaminated groundwater.
-COGCC Website
6. Water Depletion: Each well uses approximately 3-8 million gallons of water over its lifetime.
-Dr. Jeffery Time
7. Toxic Chemicals: Of the 300-odd chemicals presumed in fracking fluid, 40% are endocrine disrupting, 1/3 are suspected carcinogens and 1/3 are developmental toxicants. Over 60% of these chemicals can harm the brain and nervous system.
-Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, and Bachran M. 2011. Hum Ecol Risk Assess
All stopped now, of course.
http://survation.com/ukip-won-in-8-westminster-constituencies-last-thursday/
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/which-seats-will-ukip-target-at-general.html
And no, Byers didn't have to resign for what his advisor said. It did lead to his leaving office but only because (1) he refused to sack her and (2) he committed several more errors later. It was a cumulative effect, not an instant one.
I don't think I would be putting any money on UKIP achieving 15% or more of the votes in 2015. I still think they will be nearer to 10%, which would be a brilliant result for them. UKIP have not published their manifesto yet and I suspect that once people have had a chance of studying it, that they will go back to the party they supported in 2010. If you are a Labour voter, would you vote UKIP purely on EU/immigration issues, when most of UKIP's other policies are Tory policies from decades ago.
There was a piece on Look North the other day about concerns in rural Yorkshire, because there are so many (mostly unmapped) mines and fear that fracking could lead to collapses, potentially taking buildings down (as I said, it's a rural concern, so that'd be bad luck rather than guaranteed).
It's staggering we might actually lack sufficient electricity in a decade or two because of the intransigent idiocy of Labour and (to a lesser but still reprehensible extent) the Coalition.
McVey's kneejerk reaction did her no favours. She could have passed.
Miliband on the couch being analysed by Dr Freud. (grandfather of David).
And for more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
Grimsby (Labour): I would suspect pretty strong Anti EU feeling with regards to fishing quotas etc - but there were a lot of Liberal voters. I rate this rather marginal as a 3
Sittingborne and Sheppey (Cons): Solidly conservative with no chance for Labour. A solid voting base in 2010 is a good starting point: rated as 4
Aylesbury (Cons): This is bluer than the deep blue sea and IMHO too big a mountain. rated 0
East Worthing and Shoreham (Cons): IMHO - too much work and too many liberals. rated 0
Great Yarmouth (Cons): Very good chance unless Labour/Tory turn it into a marginal during the campaign. 43 -33 and not many liberals. Rated as a 9.
Thurrock (Cons): This is more likely to go Labour than UKIP. Rated as a 3.
Boston and Skegness (Cons): High UKIP base to work with, Labour have no chance so could switch in droves. Definitely rated as a 9
South Thanet (Cons): This would be rated as a '4' other than the name of the UKIP candidate.
North Thanet (Cons): Too Blue - UKIP will come up short. 0
Eastleigh (Lib Dem): obviously a target but there is a difference between being in the media spotlight and being one of 650.
Portsmouth South (Independent): Independents are tricky - but presumably the Lib Dems are well organised 0.
This is based on Liberal Democrats not switching to UKIP but heavy TV by the major party when they can't win the seat.
It has almost the same profile as Thurrock, in terms of euro and 2010 results. My system actually makes it a stringer seat for Ukip than Thurrock
A bit of inside info, I think the candidate will be a bit less Ukip than we are used to..
- Jo Moore was his political adviser (SPAD) not secretary, and Byers didn't resign
- He didn't resign either when he lied about Sixsmith being sacked 6 months later
- He finally resigned in May 2002 after being criticised by the Labour dominated transport select committee and ongoing scrutiny of his decision to allow Richard Desmond to buy the Daily Express
So in that sense the UKIP phenomenon is nothing new, just a transfer of the 'none of the above' vote from one brand to another.
A lot has changed (quite a bit for the better, some for the worse) since Joe because CEO and Vasella was defenestrated
Ahh, good old FPTP, thanks Dave!
If Gordon keeps holding the Tories feet to the fire on Devomore that should help shore up the Labour vote too.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100288894/game-of-losers-the-numbers-show-david-cameron-and-ed-miliband-face-election-stalemate/
UKIP is the preferred choice for swing voters from 2010 Lab/Con, but the 2010-LD switchers are not all, or even mostly, purple. :-(
Now, let's talk about some magic beans that I think you may be interested in purchasing ...
Then there's the question of targeting. UKIP have a big decision to make: do they shoot for the moon and risk underperforming in seat tallies or do they focus their energies on a few seats? UKIP do not have great resources. My guess it that they will eventually try to focus on their targets. Any seat that is not a target will be much less likely to fall to the purple team, because the ground game will be important. So the next question is how many seats will UKIP seriously target (and which are they)?
Their party management to date has been ropey: they've already had embarrassments with candidates in two of their potentially strongest seats (Great Yarmouth and Camborne & Redruth). I shall be kind and not lump the former Clacton candidate in the same category. Given how few seats UKIP stand a real chance in, this is pretty appalling party management. Now this may not matter too much if the public is just going to stick two fingers up at Westminster, but if two candidates in major target seats have proved embarrassing, the chances are that there will be others who undermine the party's chances in their constituencies by giving their opponents free campaign material.
As things stand now, I urge caution before backing UKIP directly in too many seats (as opposed to factoring a strong UKIP performance into the more mainstream Labour/Conservative battles).
But so much of what happens next hinges on the result in Rochester & Strood, and the fall-out from it.
In any case you ignored my point, which was that your statement was incorrect.
Cons:17; LAB: 28; LD: 7; SNP: 38; UKIP: 8 and Green:2, the seats are:
Cons: 3: LAB: 19; LD: 3: SNP: 34; Others: 0
JENNIFER - I have been puzzled by the Rockefeller's decision to pull out of their core oil interests and go all out for alternative energy.
Owen Patterson, who is apparently, a 'climate-change denier', is also pushing that agenda.
For some reason they are calling it 'clean' energy now.
TAP - Their new business will be water supply. They are using fracking to destroy the water reserves of the developed world, and will truck in water and charge it at the same price as oil is now. They won't need an oil business any more as water will be much simpler, far more profitable, and politically a powerful control device. If they don't like you, they'll cut you off. That's what shale gas is really all about. Water is the new oil.
Anyone who continues to criticise Freud or the Tories on this basis, I shall have to conclude, is a moron. Criticise him for being foolish enough to say something so easily twisted, but to honestly contort that into an attack on his values requires a sub-par intellect. And I'm sure none of you would want to be dishonest.
You heard it here first. Richard Nabavi says: "The Conservatives are the new 'none of the above' party"
'Cameron allowed Marr to keep him on Europe because he thinks he can win back disgruntled Tory voters who are threatening to vote Ukip in the local and European elections on 22 May and the Newark by-election on 5 June.
But he backed himself into a corner when he admitted to Marr that he was unwilling to curb EU freedom of movement rules - despite concerns that figures out this week will show that 30,000 Romanians and Bulgarians have come to Britain since controls were lifted at the start of the year.
Cameron's point was that EU citizens should continue to be able to move to another country to get work - a right enjoyed by many Brits going aboard as well as foreigners coming here – but not to gain better benefits. '
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/eu-immigration/58485/i-won-t-stop-eu-migrants-says-cameron-great-headline-dave#ixzz3GIYPJdws'
In the same way I do not agree with you that Dave is merely announcing policy in the run-up to the election. He is being forced into making announcements because UKIP is eating into the Tory vote. Just as he was forced into making a referendum pledge because it was the only way he felt he could keep right wing Tory MPs onside. He is all over the place because he is responding to agendas set by others rather than setting the agenda himself. It is a display of profound weakness. And it will fool no-one except loyal Tories.
We will have to agree to disagree.
and once again Aunty has it as their top story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29641409
I'm not a fan of this approach being strictly applied - although the SPAD parachute model is daft as well - because someone should be able to represent the concerns of, say, Dover, if they grew up in Great Yarmouth: it's more about ensuring someone *understands* the issues that their constituents face.
But if they have made the decision to go for the strict local approach, then they have made a strategic decision. You can disagree with them on the decision, but it's unreasonable to complain that they have done something badly when they've decided not to do it at all.
All of Cameron's detailed announcements are consistent with the broad brush principles that @Richard_Nabavi believes he holds.
But the timing of the announcements is clearly driven by UKIP (tick, @SouthamObserver)
What we don't know - but may speculate - is whether he would have announced these specific promises if it hadn't been for UKIP
http://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/the-council/councillors--meetings/councillors.aspx
They have been increasing their representation over the years in good and bad times and are well dug in. UKIP's chance was the By-Election, if they couldn't get it then I doubt they'd win in the GE.
Since she was shaping my eyebrows at the time I decided it was safest to agree with her, but it is the first time in years that she has ever discussed politics with me and it came out of nowhere.
I suspect that she is as good a sample as any, although I understand the dangers of a sample size of "one", but it perked my interest enough to keep my ears open for any more casual "UKIP interest" and it is definitely out there. People are half willing to listen because the Tories are corrupt, capitalist, baby-eaters and Labour are financial incomptents and the Lib Dems are treacherous turn-coats.
People are running out of parties to vote for.
As an aside, Miliband pledged 100% carbon-free electricity at his recent conference.
"Of course the purples are enjoying the aftermath of their by election successes a week ago and as is being widely pointed the SDP was doing this in the early 80s only to fade at GE1983"
This is only partly true. The SDP increased the 'centre' vote from the 13% or so that the Liberals had been polling through 1980 up to the high twenties within about three months of forming at the beginning of 1981. They then held steady at about that level for most of the year before surging again to around 40% in the autumn. That surge was short-lived and the share started falling early in 1982 (before the Falklands War broke out - it was back to about 30% by that time), flattening out in the low-twenties for the second half of that year. It then fluctuated with some volatility in 1983 but ended up in the mid-twenties.
Conclusion: the Alliance's figures for most of the parliament after they formed were not a bad guide to where they finished up, apart from a short-lived surge. In particular, their polling six months out from the election was a decent guide. Yes, they did fall back from their peak (doesn't everyone, unless they time their peak for polling day?), but they *didn't* decline in the run-up to polling day. In fact, they put on about 5% during the course of the campaign.
Besides, what are severely disabled people supposed to do? You cannot just write them off. They need something, some support.
No doubt some govt. ministers are not worth their wage either...
Seeing as most people that move here from the eu are not benefit claimants it is barely worth doing for all the moral clout he will lose
So if he is going further, and putting restrictions on the amount of people that can work here, the that is entirely inconsistent and a move that can only be explained by being frightened of Ukip
It goes without saying that he isn't doing it out if any passion or conviction. It's just anything to try and win votes
Greenest govt ever/ green crap
Section 28/ gay marriage
Apartheid SA visit/ Mandela gushing
No too down re organisation/ top down organisation
Anything for a sale
The ultimate end game of negative campaigning. Even if you do succesfully slime one opposition party, if you have not created a positive vision of why people should also vote for you, then they will go and look for another opposition party. We saw this at the last election with the LD surge.
A bit like EV4EL - try to pushing a recognised problem into the long grass in the hope that it will disappear. Just shows a front bench that is bereft of any constructive ideas.
In any case, you can't have it both ways. People bitch that 'politicians aren't listening', and then bitch when they do listen. Which do you want?
SKY: What do you think of UKIP then?
GIRLS: We think its really good. We think its a change, and it can just do different...
The overall swing from Conservative to Labour in this group of seats was 5%, but as in previous rounds there was some variation between constituencies: from 2% in Pudsey (a tie) and Gloucester (Tory hold) to 6.5% in Hastings & Rye and 8% in Brentford & Isleworth.
Though nine of these seats would change hands on the basis of these snapshots Labour will not feel comfortable in many of them. Though Labour led by ten points in Enfield North and 13 points in Brentford, they were ahead by less than five points in Brighton Kemptown, Hove, Halesowen & Rowley Regis and Nuneaton.
Swings to Labour appear to be related to the UKIP presence, which varied significantly from one seat to the next. Nigel Farage’s party scored just 7% in Brentford & Isleworth (where Labour’s share was up eleven points since 2010), but 24% in Halesowen (where Labour were down by two points, though still just ahead)
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/10/back-con-lab-battleground/
Wibble, reset policy fault, reset Ed - insert sharp object into ear now...
If the country on the whole takes a turn toward liking immigration and the EU, I would be very disappointed in Farage if he started extolling their virtues just to keep ukip high in the polls... To me that is what Cameron has done...
Let's say I vote for Cameron, then in a years time the polls say, actually we like lots of uncontrolled immigration? I have no doubt Cameron will drop any idea of controlling it and leaved everyone who voted for him on a false prospectus disappointed
Again!
In ten years they should be as useless as all the main parties and therefore highly respectable....
Con are currently 9/4 to hold Pudsey with Publicity Shy Paddy Power.
Time for boots to be filled?
Every single poll of whatever kind seems to be pointing towards another hung parliament.