The problem with the Greens is that they are a bunch nasty authoritarians who want to control our lives using the "environment" as a pretext.
They are but in this respect they are simply clones of both the LDs and the Labour party. I guess they're winning support form both exLds and some lefty Labourites who are tearing their hair out as they have such a s***e leader.
Wasn't Calypso the randy nymph/goddess who got into trouble with Zeus for supporting the Titans in their war against the Olympians, and was exiled to an island, upon which Odysseus washed up?
They are but in this respect they are simply clones of both the LDs and the Labour party. I guess they're winning support form both exLds and some lefty Labourites who are tearing their hair out as they have such a s***e leader.
@felix, I'm neither a LibDem nor a Labour-ite, but what you say is simply not true.
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
Whatever criticisms you might level at the LibDems and Labour, they are not enemies of progress and material well being. They might or might not have policies which enable those goals, but they do not deliberarely seek to use authoritarian measures to make us poorer.
I suspect that conventional seat calculations go out the window if the Conservatives and Labour win c.30% each, with UKIP in the high teens.
UKIP on 18% means a rise of 15%, compared to 2010. But, it would not be 15% per seat. It would be more like 1-2% in central Scotland, and perhaps 3-4% in Inner London. In prosperous parts of the Home Counties, I'd expect a rise of 5-10% per seat.
But, that would leave some seats in which the UKIP share was rising by 20-30%.
What would be the highest vote share in Clacton that you think UKIP could get and loose the seat? (apart from 49%)
40%, I think.
It is very difficult to project forwards. Numbers always mean what different things to different people. However, here is one take on the numbers, not designed as pro or anti any party, just to look at the way voters may go.
Clacton 2014 Ukip Con Lab
Percentage 59.7 24.6 11.2
Only 51% turnout (instead of 64% at 2010 GE)
How many of those 13% who could return for the GE are reluctant Labour or Tory? (I think it is safe to assume they aren't reluctant UKIP at this phase of the game the UKIP vote should be at its peak for Clacton 2014)
If we assume Carswell has a constant vote of 21,113 votes in a higer turnout of 43123 (2010) this sees his share fall to 48.9%, without shedding any votes. I know this assumes UKIP had the maximum available votes, but are there reasons to see an increase in UKIP votes for 2015 over the ideal conditions of 2014?
To get to the 40% you suggest as the highest % figure at which Carswell could fail to hold the seat 9% of the 2014 UKIP voters would need to desert Carswell, which is about 3150 voters.
The numbers needed to make a big change become small.
There has been no rise in Green support . In all council by elections from July to date they have polled less than 4% of the vote . Where they had contested the seat at the previous election their vote share fell in all except 2 contests .
There has been no rise in Green support . In all council by elections from July to date they have polled less than 4% of the vote . Where they had contested the seat at the previous election their vote share fell in all except 2 contests .
I think alot of pople like to answer "Green" in this sort of poll but on the day they'll probably just stay at home.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
Being found in a massage parlour is pretty small beer, compared to being defecated upon.
The Hunt for Red October 2014 ---------------------------
Sean Connery steals a sub from Clydemouth with apparent orders to "nuke England" but he actually wants to defect. The Scottish Government, desperate to prevent the submarine falling into English hands, concocted the "nuke" story in order to goad the English into sinking Connery themselves.
Eventually, Alec Baldwin, working part-time for British Intelligence, gets a Royal Navy sub to make contact with Connery, gaining his trust. Meanwhile, a freak "Irn-Bru accident" in Connery's sub's galley convinces his crew to abandon ship, enabling Connery and a few of his loyal officers to defect. The submarine is safely and secretly taken to Plymouth, without the Scottish Government's knowledge.
There has been no rise in Green support . In all council by elections from July to date they have polled less than 4% of the vote . Where they had contested the seat at the previous election their vote share fell in all except 2 contests .
I think alot of pople like to answer "Green" in this sort of poll but on the day they'll probably just stay at home.
A bit like the "voters" Mr Smithson was so disappointed with who told pollsters they would vote Lib Dem in the 2010GE.
Funny that Mark Senior should clutch so determinedly to his council by-elections. There's a much better example in the European elections. Although the Greens won an extra MEP, their vote share declined on 2009. They only finished ahead of the Lib Dems because their decline in vote share was vertiginous.
I'm also amused that my identity as a Green voter is somehow a secret. I thought I'd been obvious about it.
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
No. That is only true if you have a particular, very traditional view of "progress".
The Greens believe in, for example, stopping road-building and encouraging alternatives to the private car. If you believe that unfettered personal mobility is "progress", as many people do, then you will of course believe that the Greens are anti-progress.
However, if you believe that a Dutch-style city where people can walk and cycle around more freely without fear of being squashed would be a "progression" from the current state of (say) London, then you will see Green policy as progressive and national Conservative policy as regressive. (I say "national", because Boris has made a few steps towards liveable streets and active travel, while the Coalition government has moved in the opposite direction.)
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·26 secs26 seconds ago "If you earn £43,000 Labour thinks you should pay the Mansion Tax". Tory election poster heading your way soon...
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
Being found in a massage parlour is pretty small beer, compared to being defecated upon.
I suspect that conventional seat calculations go out the window if the Conservatives and Labour win c.30% each, with UKIP in the high teens.
UKIP on 18% means a rise of 15%, compared to 2010. But, it would not be 15% per seat. It would be more like 1-2% in central Scotland, and perhaps 3-4% in Inner London. In prosperous parts of the Home Counties, I'd expect a rise of 5-10% per seat.
.
What would be the highest vote share in Clacton that you think UKIP could get and loose the seat? (apart from 49%)
40%, I think.
Clacton 2014 Ukip Con Lab
Percentage 59.7 24.6 11.2
Only 51% turnout (instead of 64% at 2010 GE)
How many of those 13% who could return for the GE are reluctant Labour or Tory? (I think it is safe to assume they aren't reluctant UKIP at this phase of the game the UKIP vote should be at its peak for Clacton 2014)
If we assume Carswell has a constant vote of 21,113 votes in a higer turnout of 43123 (2010) this sees his share fall to 48.9%, without shedding any votes. I know this assumes UKIP had the maximum available votes, but are there reasons to see an increase in UKIP votes for 2015 over the ideal conditions of 2014?
To get to the 40% you suggest as the highest % figure at which Carswell could fail to hold the seat 9% of the 2014 UKIP voters would need to desert Carswell, which is about 3150 voters.
The numbers needed to make a big change become small.
Your assumption is that people will want to go out to vote and turnout will approximately remain the same. Yet clearly none of the three establishment party leaders have in anyway enthused the electorate. As such chances are many less dedicated voters may not bother turning out My view is turnout will be down and much closer to 2005 than 2010.
Potential Reasons to vote UKIP now and not before
1) They have proved they can win a Westminster seat 2) They are broadening their message and have a full portfolio of policies rather than just being a party of EU Withdrawal and Immigration control 3) The government or opposition are involved in a scandal / negative media (e.g. Tories lose Rochester and vote of no confidence in Cameron is raised by Tory Backbenchers) 4) The government or opposition put forward unpopular policies or have their policies discredited (e.g Cameron's immigration commitments or EU position are discredited). 5) People haven't been taking notice of politics at all but do vote and make their decision late 6) Tactical voting UKIp can stop Tory/ Labour taking the seat
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
No. That is only true if you have a particular, very traditional view of "progress".
The Greens believe in, for example, stopping road-building and encouraging alternatives to the private car. If you believe that unfettered personal mobility is "progress", as many people do, then you will of course believe that the Greens are anti-progress.
However, if you believe that a Dutch-style city where people can walk and cycle around more freely without fear of being squashed would be a "progression" from the current state of (say) London, then you will see Green policy as progressive and national Conservative policy as regressive. (I say "national", because Boris has made a few steps towards liveable streets and active travel, while the Coalition government has moved in the opposite direction.)
In general, I'd regard the Industrial Revolution as having been a good thing. I think the invention of the motor car has been a good thing. I doubt if the Greens do.
Con + Lab (Populus) = 70% (+4 on GE2010) Con + Lab (Ashcroft) = 59% (-7 on GE2010)
The Populus weighting for UKIP and the Greens is quite severe, so it looks as though the general election will be a good methodological test. While I expect the Greens not to seriously challenge the Lib Dems in national vote share, I also find it hard to see Labour and Conservatives putting on vote share in aggregate. They are both losing too many votes to UKIP.
My guess is that half the Green's share will return to the LibDems (although not in Norfolk South, and possibly not in Bristol West), and there'll be a small return of Labour voters (maybe 1-2%) to the LibDems, to give them 12-13% at the GE. And this will land them 25 to 28 seats.
My assumption is that UKIP will end up around 15%, and will get between 4 and 10 seats. I do not think Mark Reckless will hold Rochester, even if he wins the by-election.
This means the 'window' for NOC is slightly smaller than in 2010, and that it is slightly more likely we will see a majority government than most people think. However, I think it is the Conservatives who will end up - by a super small margin - with the majority: perhaps 10 seats.
But we'll see. All to play for :-)
Wow. That's more or less exactly what I think. I'm serious..
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
Being found in a massage parlour is pretty small beer, compared to being defecated upon.
Or accidentally strangling yourself to death?
Wearing a pair of womens' tights, and with a Satsuma in one's mouth.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
A good idea, a loony plan, a desirable apt of our energy mix, or yet more ME energy-dependency madness?
(As a side issue, what would the energy losses be like when transferring the 'leccy from Tunisia to the UK? We don't have a pan-European HVDC network yet, so how much would they have to generate at their end to guarantee us 2GW? And if they expand to many more GWs, would be there be balancing issues on the European grid?)
... none of the three establishment party leaders have in anyway enthused the electorate. As such chances are many less dedicated voters may not bother turning out My view is turnout will be down and much closer to 2005 than 2010....
I disagree.
Relative to 2010 we now have two more national parties that have MPs in the House of Commons (UKIP and Greens) and who can therefore present themselves as a new and realistic alternative to the establishment parties. How can this not result in a higher turnout?
Having said that, it would be an interesting exercise for anyone with some time on their hands, to compute the average decrease in turnout at by-elections in the previous Parliament to this Parliament. This might give us some sort of evidence, as opposed to guesswork.
I suspect that conventional seat calculations go out the window if the Conservatives and Labour win c.30% each, with UKIP in the high teens. .
It is very difficult to project forwards. Numbers always mean what different things to different people. However, here is one take on the numbers, not designed as pro or anti any party, just to look at the way voters may go.
Clacton 2014 Ukip Con Lab
Percentage 59.7 24.6 11.2
Only 51% turnout (instead of 64% at 2010 GE)
How many of those 13% who could return for the GE are reluctant Labour or Tory? (I think it is safe to assume they aren't reluctant UKIP at this phase of the game the UKIP vote should be at its peak for Clacton 2014)
If we assume Carswell has a constant vote of 21,113 votes in a higer turnout of 43123 (2010) this sees his share fall to 48.9%, without shedding any votes. I know this assumes UKIP had the maximum available votes, but are there reasons to see an increase in UKIP votes for 2015 over the ideal conditions of 2014?
To get to the 40% you suggest as the highest % figure at which Carswell could fail to hold the seat 9% of the 2014 UKIP voters would need to desert Carswell, which is about 3150 voters.
The numbers needed to make a big change become small.
Your assumption is that people will want to go out to vote and turnout will approximately remain the same. Yet clearly none of the three establishment party leaders have in anyway enthused the electorate. As such chances are many less dedicated voters may not bother turning out My view is turnout will be down and much closer to 2005 than 2010.
Potential Reasons to vote UKIP now and not before
1) They have proved they can win a Westminster seat 2) They are broadening their message and have a full portfolio of policies rather than just being a party of EU Withdrawal and Immigration control 3) The government or opposition are involved in a scandal / negative media (e.g. Tories lose Rochester and vote of no confidence in Cameron is raised by Tory Backbenchers) 4) The government or opposition put forward unpopular policies or have their policies discredited (e.g Cameron's immigration commitments or EU position are discredited). 5) People haven't been taking notice of politics at all but do vote and make their decision late
You may well be right about turnout percentage 2015.
The other reasons you give may well be factors in most seats, but the in exceptional circumstances of Clacton in 2014 and 2015 they are probably irrelevant.
In 2015 it is likely the other parties may try to win, for example.
They are but in this respect they are simply clones of both the LDs and the Labour party. I guess they're winning support form both exLds and some lefty Labourites who are tearing their hair out as they have such a s***e leader.
@felix, I'm neither a LibDem nor a Labour-ite, but what you say is simply not true.
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
Whatever criticisms you might level at the LibDems and Labour, they are not enemies of progress and material well being. They might or might not have policies which enable those goals, but they do not deliberarely seek to use authoritarian measures to make us poorer.
I think that is not an accurate description of most of their supporters while both the LDs and Labour espouse all aspects of the nanny state with 'mucho gusto'. It won't be long before they'll be seeking to outlaw sweets and cakes - both indoors and outdoors!
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
No. That is only true if you have a particular, very traditional view of "progress".
The Greens believe in, for example, stopping road-building and encouraging alternatives to the private car. If you believe that unfettered personal mobility is "progress", as many people do, then you will of course believe that the Greens are anti-progress.
However, if you believe that a Dutch-style city where people can walk and cycle around more freely without fear of being squashed would be a "progression" from the current state of (say) London, then you will see Green policy as progressive and national Conservative policy as regressive. (I say "national", because Boris has made a few steps towards liveable streets and active travel, while the Coalition government has moved in the opposite direction.)
In general, I'd regard the Industrial Revolution as having been a good thing. I think the invention of the motor car has been a good thing. I doubt if the Greens do.
I'm a Green and I don't want to discard the good bits of the Industrial Revolution - but I do think we can do better.
I actually had a Green flyer up in my front window during the Euro election campaign because the lead regional candidate was very impressive. Then at the very last minute in the polling booth I swerved away from them and reverted back to the Conservatives because I was worried about the rise of UKIP.
I've regretted that vote since - and increasingly so in the last couple of weeks as the Conservatives have become generally unpleasant across a wide range of issues (immigration, human rights, disability etc). We never hear anything useful about environmental issues from the Conservatives now - which is very disappointing for those of us who liked their "vote blue, go green" campaign in 2010.
I won't make the same mistake again. If there's a Green candidate in my seat at the next GE then they'll get my vote. Simple as that.
Incidentally I think that the rise of UKIP is helping to create the mini Green surge as people realise that there are more options on the menu than they'd previously seriously considered.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
Being found in a massage parlour is pretty small beer, compared to being defecated upon.
Or accidentally strangling yourself to death?
Wearing a pair of womens' tights, and with a Satsuma in one's mouth.
Can't believe it was 20 years ago already. Provided no end of humour at school.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
They were fruit cakes and loons previously, fortunately for them they were such small fish in a large pond, they where able to remain unobserved by the press. Now their pond has shrunk considerably they are much easier to spot.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
For example, I don't think that Matthew Parris's venom towards the people who live in places like Clacton has developed overnight. It's a more slow-burning anger towards such people. Their defection to UKIP is the catalyst to let it all pour out.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
Works both ways. Some Tories who *stayed* in the Tory party have became fruitcake and loons since UKIP have been around. Pouring horrendous levels of abuse on those who've defected and, even more bizzarely, those Tories still in the party who defend them.
For a certain breed of moderniser, being in favour of EU withdrawal and limited immigration is now sneered at in 'polite' circles within the Tory party.
A good idea, a loony plan, a desirable apt of our energy mix, or yet more ME energy-dependency madness?
(As a side issue, what would the energy losses be like when transferring the 'leccy from Tunisia to the UK? We don't have a pan-European HVDC network yet, so how much would they have to generate at their end to guarantee us 2GW? And if they expand to many more GWs, would be there be balancing issues on the European grid?)
Well, in practice what would happen is that they would export their electricity to Italy. Italy would then not need to import so much electricity from France. France could then export more electricity to the UK.
I'm not sure how that would qualify them for a contract for difference from the UK government, but I believe madder things have happened. Someone would also need to put up the money to pay for a higher-capacity link between France and the UK. The existing one is normally maxed out with French electricity flowing to the UK as it is.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
For example, I don't think that Matthew Parris's venom towards the people who live in places like Clacton has developed overnight. It's a more slow-burning anger towards such people. Their defection to UKIP is the catalyst to let it all pour out.
In the Tory party they are old school or gentleperson eccentrics and/or EU headbangers
In UKIP they are concentrated and thus become a collective fruitcake.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
In this poll, UKIP are beating the Tories with 2010-Labour and 2010-LD voters.
As I understand it the Cameroons strategy was aimed at becoming more attractive to those groups. That looks like a fail.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
No. That is only true if you have a particular, very traditional view of "progress".
The Greens believe in, for example, stopping road-building and encouraging alternatives to the private car. If you believe that unfettered personal mobility is "progress", as many people do, then you will of course believe that the Greens are anti-progress.
However, if you believe that a Dutch-style city where people can walk and cycle around more freely without fear of being squashed would be a "progression" from the current state of (say) London, then you will see Green policy as progressive and national Conservative policy as regressive. (I say "national", because Boris has made a few steps towards liveable streets and active travel, while the Coalition government has moved in the opposite direction.)
In general, I'd regard the Industrial Revolution as having been a good thing. I think the invention of the motor car has been a good thing. I doubt if the Greens do.
The industrial revolution was one of the greatest things to ever happen to mankind. Millions of people were taken from living on the breadline to comfortable lives where food, clothing and shelter were never in doubt. For the first time in human history, it produced a constant loop of new inventions creating wealth which paid for discovering new inventions. And the huge economic engine meant that public goods like education and healthcare could be paid for on a mass scale. There were (and still are) obviously a few problems with pollution, but that's nothing that a few moderate regulations couldn't/won't fix.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
No because a large part of the Nasty Party image is to do with being upper class and wealthy. So unless the Tories wish to purge themselves of large numbers of their A/B voters and members they won't be able to shake the image....
UKIP on the other hand are already sanitising themselves from any residual taint that comes from their associations with the Tories by appealing to the working classes.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
Matthew Parris really is the most contemptible snob.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
No because a large part of the Nasty Party image is to do with being upper class and wealthy. So unless the Tories wish to purge themselves of large numbers of their A/B voters they won't be able to shake the image....
The fundamental problem the Tories have had over the last decade is that they didn't realise their toxicity was down to being seen as being the party of the wealthy, rather than the party of social conservatives.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
The most incredible thing about Parris is that he still thinks he's right. He even wrote an article telling everyone why those who told him, "you just don't get it" were wrong.
... none of the three establishment party leaders have in anyway enthused the electorate. As such chances are many less dedicated voters may not bother turning out My view is turnout will be down and much closer to 2005 than 2010....
I disagree.
Relative to 2010 we now have two more national parties that have MPs in the House of Commons (UKIP and Greens) and who can therefore present themselves as a new and realistic alternative to the establishment parties. How can this not result in a higher turnout?
Having said that, it would be an interesting exercise for anyone with some time on their hands, to compute the average decrease in turnout at by-elections in the previous Parliament to this Parliament. This might give us some sort of evidence, as opposed to guesswork.
We actually have THREE extra parties since 2010. You ignore RESPECT and Galloway's sensational victory over LAB in the 2012 Bradford by-election. I was on at 33/1.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
That may be his objection it's not mine. Mike Read is not lower or working class and UKIP are welcome to him. I must confess I'd never noticed he was previously associated with the Tories. There are plenty of others I'd be glad to see go and none of them due to their social class.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
Ah ha, bringing in a bit of Class Warfare. Kippers adopting another Labour habit?
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
The most incredible thing about Parris is that he still thinks he's right. He even wrote an article telling everyone why those who told him, "you just don't get it" were wrong.
I think he replied: "oh, yes I do."
What struck me about his article was that for someone who claims to be a moderniser, just how very dated were the sentiments he expressed. It would be like some grandee in 1918 expressing distaste about the attitudes of the newly-enfranchised working classes.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
What is remarkable is how calmly we are all discussing the very real possibility that, in the next GE:
1. a party unrepresented in Westminster (til last week) might get nearly 20% of the vote 2. the two main parties might not get 60% of the vote between them, indeed they might both fall below 30% 3. the Liberal Democrats might come FIFTH in overall votes
One of these results would be seismic, added together they would be as close as you get to a revolution in British politics.
When you consider how many of the so called 'Pillars of Society have been scandalised in recent years ~ House Of Lords, House Of Commons, Police (repeatedly), NHS, Media, BBC, Local Government" etc etc its hardly surprising that so many people are rejecting the establishment parties
To vote for a party whose MEP's are more likely to go to prison than any other. Or be found in a massage parlour.
Being found in a massage parlour is pretty small beer, compared to being defecated upon.
... none of the three establishment party leaders have in anyway enthused the electorate. As such chances are many less dedicated voters may not bother turning out My view is turnout will be down and much closer to 2005 than 2010....
I disagree.
Relative to 2010 we now have two more national parties that have MPs in the House of Commons (UKIP and Greens) and who can therefore present themselves as a new and realistic alternative to the establishment parties. How can this not result in a higher turnout?
Having said that, it would be an interesting exercise for anyone with some time on their hands, to compute the average decrease in turnout at by-elections in the previous Parliament to this Parliament. This might give us some sort of evidence, as opposed to guesswork.
We actually have THREE extra parties since 2010. You ignore RESPECT and Galloway's sensational victory over LAB in the 2012 Bradford by-election. I was on at 33/1.
Well, not really. Respect won the seat of Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005, so at the 2010 general election they already held a seat. Consequently, the GE in 2015 will be no different in this regard.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
The most incredible thing about Parris is that he still thinks he's right. He even wrote an article telling everyone why those who told him, "you just don't get it" were wrong.
I think he replied: "oh, yes I do."
What struck me about his article was that for someone who claims to be a moderniser, just how very dated were the sentiments he expressed. It would be like some grandee in 1918 expressing distaste about the attitudes of the newly-enfranchised working classes.
Modernisers just want all the professionals and middle class/upper middle class to vote Conservative. They don't care what policy positions and principles they adopt to get that; they don't want any of the rest.
I actually had a Green flyer up in my front window during the Euro election campaign because the lead regional candidate was very impressive. Then at the very last minute in the polling booth I swerved away from them and reverted back to the Conservatives because I was worried about the rise of UKIP.
I've regretted that vote since - and increasingly so in the last couple of weeks as the Conservatives have become generally unpleasant across a wide range of issues (immigration, human rights, disability etc). We never hear anything useful about environmental issues from the Conservatives now - which is very disappointing for those of us who liked their "vote blue, go green" campaign in 2010.
I won't make the same mistake again. If there's a Green candidate in my seat at the next GE then they'll get my vote. Simple as that.
Incidentally I think that the rise of UKIP is helping to create the mini Green surge as people realise that there are more options on the menu than they'd previously seriously considered.
Greens should be passionate about immigration, protecting the green belt, overpopulation, increased use of resources if a person moves to the first world from the third. Strangely silent, almost as if environmental concerns were a flag of convenience for other issues.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
No because a large part of the Nasty Party image is to do with being upper class and wealthy. So unless the Tories wish to purge themselves of large numbers of their A/B voters they won't be able to shake the image....
The fundamental problem the Tories have had over the last decade is that they didn't realise their toxicity was down to being seen as being the party of the wealthy, rather than the party of social conservatives.
Now if we blues use the same ethics as Tristram Hunt last week after PMQs on the Freud quote when he said the Tories wanted all disabled people to be paid just £2 an hour, I would imagine the Tories would go around saying 'we are deeply concerned that Labour seem to think their Mansion Tax should now appy to those people earning £43,000 or more, who are clearly not oligarchs or super rich... what happened to the squeezed middle?'
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·30 mins30 minutes ago Yesterday people saw "Labour Mansion Tax" and "£2 million" in the same sentence. Tomorrow it will be "Labour Mansion Tax" and "£43,000".
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
Fast forward to January 2020, Ed Milibands Labour government had been in power for nearly 5 years after winning a majority in 2015 with only 33% of the vote. No referendum held on EU membership, no boundary changes, more devolved powers to Scotland and Wales, steady GDP growth each year, deficit reduced to 3% or less, incomes rising for most.
If this happens, the Tories would be thinking that they should have backed electoral reform, as Labour could be on the verge of another 5 years in government to 2025. That would mean the Tories not winning a majority for 32 years and an electoral system that appears stacked against them getting into government.
If I were a Tory, I would want to change to PR, as that offers the chance of being in government more, even if it means coalitions most of the time. The Lib Dems have not prevented the Tories implementing most of their policies.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
One gets the impression that some Conservatives really really dislike a lot of the people who've voted for them in the past.
One can understand why. As Saddened posts below, as their visibility has increased, the odder leanings and traits have been exposed.
The real objection (as Parris' article makes plain) is that such voters and party members tend to be working and lower-middle class.
The most incredible thing about Parris is that he still thinks he's right. He even wrote an article telling everyone why those who told him, "you just don't get it" were wrong.
I think he replied: "oh, yes I do."
What struck me about his article was that for someone who claims to be a moderniser, just how very dated were the sentiments he expressed. It would be like some grandee in 1918 expressing distaste about the attitudes of the newly-enfranchised working classes.
Modernisers just want all the professionals and middle class/upper middle class to vote Conservative. They don't care what policy positions and principles they adopt to get that; they don't want any of the rest.
Actually I have always believed the modernisers are more concerned with narrowing the terms of acceptable debate on immigration, social issues and foreign policy. Coopting the opposition.
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
Is there an (embargoed) poll out there ?
Don't know. I expect there is private polling being done.
I suspect the next public one will be done once the Tory candidate has been selected.
Consider me stunned, I was about to embarrass myself on another site swearing blind it was an anti kipper spoof.
Read has form, once rapped at Tory conference.
UKIP do seem to be attracting former Tory fruitcakes and loons.
The interesting question is whether they were fruitcakes and loons when they were with the Tory Party, or did they only acquire that status upon joining UKIP?
This chimes with my theory that UKIP are doing the Tories a long-term favour by siphoning off the more extreme elements, councillors, MPs maybe and voters. UKIP will be the 'nasty' party, Tories will be de-toxified provided they don't follow in UKIP's wake. Of course it's not helping the Tories in the short term.
Nice theory. Fails the practical.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
To the right of the party and obsessed by Europe. Fruitcakes and loons are your words.
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
With the travails of FPTP with the current polling scores, and the brief plugs of books on the site earlier, I'll take the plunge meself.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one )
In light of the fact that 1.4 / 3.75 is a marginal under-round and Labour have next to no chance in Rochester, I've added £5 of 11-4 on the Tories with Coral.
Good to see OGH thread has gently moved the Betfair prices on Rochester.... more power to his elbow!
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either...
Wait until you see the next poll.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
And Sol.
Sol's a Tory. You have to love him now.
He may be but he's forever red now.
He's been slagging off Ed over the mansion tax
You should love him.
Come on now TSE, EVERYONE slags off both Ed's in Labour, that's hardly a scouts badge of merit.
Mr. Cooke, although I'd perhaps not do this, you *can* get around the zero price issue. If you release via somewhere else (say, Smashwords) for free I think you can get Amazon to lower the price to match (to 0, in that case) if someone else gives them a nudge that other retailers have it at zero.
Personally, I'd leave it, but thought it worth mentioning.
Comments
The problem with the Greens is that they are a bunch nasty authoritarians who want to control our lives using the "environment" as a pretext.
They are but in this respect they are simply clones of both the LDs and the Labour party. I guess they're winning support form both exLds and some lefty Labourites who are tearing their hair out as they have such a s***e leader.
Could be wrong.
Ouch - you'd have to have a heart of stone not to etc, etc....
The Greens, as a movement, and as codified in their 2010 manifesto, want to stop progress. They believe, genuinely and sincerely, in reducing human well-being, wealth, income, etc., to create a greater balance with nature and to allow more "sustainability".
Whatever criticisms you might level at the LibDems and Labour, they are not enemies of progress and material well being. They might or might not have policies which enable those goals, but they do not deliberarely seek to use authoritarian measures to make us poorer.
Clacton 2014 Ukip Con Lab
Percentage 59.7 24.6 11.2
Only 51% turnout (instead of 64% at 2010 GE)
How many of those 13% who could return for the GE are reluctant Labour or Tory? (I think it is safe to assume they aren't reluctant UKIP at this phase of the game the UKIP vote should be at its peak for Clacton 2014)
If we assume Carswell has a constant vote of 21,113 votes in a higer turnout of 43123 (2010) this sees his share fall to 48.9%, without shedding any votes. I know this assumes UKIP had the maximum available votes, but are there reasons to see an increase in UKIP votes for 2015 over the ideal conditions of 2014?
To get to the 40% you suggest as the highest % figure at which Carswell could fail to hold the seat 9% of the 2014 UKIP voters would need to desert Carswell, which is about 3150 voters.
The numbers needed to make a big change become small.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/11174169/Sweden-hunts-for-Russian-submarine-live.html
Love the "hunt for reds in October" line.
The Hunt for Red October 2014
---------------------------
Sean Connery steals a sub from Clydemouth with apparent orders to "nuke England" but he actually wants to defect. The Scottish Government, desperate to prevent the submarine falling into English hands, concocted the "nuke" story in order to goad the English into sinking Connery themselves.
Eventually, Alec Baldwin, working part-time for British Intelligence, gets a Royal Navy sub to make contact with Connery, gaining his trust. Meanwhile, a freak "Irn-Bru accident" in Connery's sub's galley convinces his crew to abandon ship, enabling Connery and a few of his loyal officers to defect. The submarine is safely and secretly taken to Plymouth, without the Scottish Government's knowledge.
Funny that Mark Senior should clutch so determinedly to his council by-elections. There's a much better example in the European elections. Although the Greens won an extra MEP, their vote share declined on 2009. They only finished ahead of the Lib Dems because their decline in vote share was vertiginous.
I'm also amused that my identity as a Green voter is somehow a secret. I thought I'd been obvious about it.
The Greens believe in, for example, stopping road-building and encouraging alternatives to the private car. If you believe that unfettered personal mobility is "progress", as many people do, then you will of course believe that the Greens are anti-progress.
However, if you believe that a Dutch-style city where people can walk and cycle around more freely without fear of being squashed would be a "progression" from the current state of (say) London, then you will see Green policy as progressive and national Conservative policy as regressive. (I say "national", because Boris has made a few steps towards liveable streets and active travel, while the Coalition government has moved in the opposite direction.)
"If you earn £43,000 Labour thinks you should pay the Mansion Tax". Tory election poster heading your way soon...
Potential Reasons to vote UKIP now and not before
1) They have proved they can win a Westminster seat
2) They are broadening their message and have a full portfolio of policies rather than just being a party of EU Withdrawal and Immigration control
3) The government or opposition are involved in a scandal / negative media (e.g. Tories lose Rochester and vote of no confidence in Cameron is raised by Tory Backbenchers)
4) The government or opposition put forward unpopular policies or have their policies discredited (e.g Cameron's immigration commitments or EU position are discredited).
5) People haven't been taking notice of politics at all but do vote and make their decision late
6) Tactical voting UKIp can stop Tory/ Labour taking the seat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_V
A company wants to provide the UK with 2GW of power - from North African solar:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29551063
A good idea, a loony plan, a desirable apt of our energy mix, or yet more ME energy-dependency madness?
(As a side issue, what would the energy losses be like when transferring the 'leccy from Tunisia to the UK? We don't have a pan-European HVDC network yet, so how much would they have to generate at their end to guarantee us 2GW? And if they expand to many more GWs, would be there be balancing issues on the European grid?)
I played it like that for ages, but reversed my positions in September. Ed Miliband's speech was a wake-up call.
Relative to 2010 we now have two more national parties that have MPs in the House of Commons (UKIP and Greens) and who can therefore present themselves as a new and realistic alternative to the establishment parties. How can this not result in a higher turnout?
Having said that, it would be an interesting exercise for anyone with some time on their hands, to compute the average decrease in turnout at by-elections in the previous Parliament to this Parliament. This might give us some sort of evidence, as opposed to guesswork.
The other reasons you give may well be factors in most seats, but the in exceptional circumstances of Clacton in 2014 and 2015 they are probably irrelevant.
In 2015 it is likely the other parties may try to win, for example.
I've regretted that vote since - and increasingly so in the last couple of weeks as the Conservatives have become generally unpleasant across a wide range of issues (immigration, human rights, disability etc). We never hear anything useful about environmental issues from the Conservatives now - which is very disappointing for those of us who liked their "vote blue, go green" campaign in 2010.
I won't make the same mistake again. If there's a Green candidate in my seat at the next GE then they'll get my vote. Simple as that.
Incidentally I think that the rise of UKIP is helping to create the mini Green surge as people realise that there are more options on the menu than they'd previously seriously considered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Milligan
So does Tory most votes
And Dave should remain past 2016 etc...
For example, I don't think that Matthew Parris's venom towards the people who live in places like Clacton has developed overnight. It's a more slow-burning anger towards such people. Their defection to UKIP is the catalyst to let it all pour out.
Heretics are more hated than heathens. Better the sultan's turban than the cardinal's hat was reportedly a saying in latter day Byzantium.
For a certain breed of moderniser, being in favour of EU withdrawal and limited immigration is now sneered at in 'polite' circles within the Tory party.
I'm not sure how that would qualify them for a contract for difference from the UK government, but I believe madder things have happened. Someone would also need to put up the money to pay for a higher-capacity link between France and the UK. The existing one is normally maxed out with French electricity flowing to the UK as it is.
In UKIP they are concentrated and thus become a collective fruitcake.
As I understand it the Cameroons strategy was aimed at becoming more attractive to those groups. That looks like a fail.
UKIP on the other hand are already sanitising themselves from any residual taint that comes from their associations with the Tories by appealing to the working classes.
Carswell and Reckless - fruitcakes and loons? Tories better off without them?
Hmmmm.
I think he replied: "oh, yes I do."
Net result was a huge advantage to the Turks.
That's why I suspect UKIP doing well in 2015 will aid the EU and Labour.
If I was able to choose one place to travel back in time to it would be to Byzantium shortly before the Fourth Crusade to save some books.
TSE hasn't even finished calling everyone in the constituency to tell them about Reckless's worth either... which is 2p an hour, not £2.
I would imagine the Tories would go around saying 'we are deeply concerned that Labour seem to think their Mansion Tax should now appy to those people earning £43,000 or more, who are clearly not oligarchs or super rich... what happened to the squeezed middle?'
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·30 mins30 minutes ago
Yesterday people saw "Labour Mansion Tax" and "£2 million" in the same sentence. Tomorrow it will be "Labour Mansion Tax" and "£43,000".
"Wearing a pair of womens' tights, and with a Satsuma in one's mouth."
He predated the rise of the fruitcakes and loonies surprisingly.
I'm going to ask Damian of Survation to tweak one of his questions.
Do you agree or disagree that Mark 'Judas' Reckless is a traitorous pig dog, whose betrayal is up there with Judas, Philby, Maclean, Burgess and Blunt?
If this happens, the Tories would be thinking that they should have backed electoral reform, as Labour could be on the verge of another 5 years in government to 2025. That would mean the Tories not winning a majority for 32 years and an electoral system that appears stacked against them getting into government.
If I were a Tory, I would want to change to PR, as that offers the chance of being in government more, even if it means coalitions most of the time. The Lib Dems have not prevented the Tories implementing most of their policies.
In due course I expect I'll green it out a bit but there's no rush. The prices, like the polls, aren't going anywhere.
I've been almost reckless in my betting...
or perhaps feckless would be more appropriate after the wedge I lost on Rev Oswald, double or quits I say!
I suspect the next public one will be done once the Tory candidate has been selected.
You should love him.
Back in 2011, I wrote a novella-length alternate history story on what could have happened if UKIP had entered the 2010 General Election debates, with the 'something different' surge that actually boosted Clegg instead boosting UKIP. It was well received on the alternate history website, and I followed it up by serialising a novel-length sequel throughout 2013.
With the real-life actual boost for UKIP, I've been talked into polishing them up and releasing them on Amazon. The first, The Fourth Lectern, is available at Amazon already; the sequel (The Fifth Lectern) will be available in a week or two (I'm finishing off getting it independently editted).
Stuff like the issues of FPTP with multiple creditable challengers and multi-way marginals are in it - as well as the reactions of the main parties to the upstarts. Might be worth your time (I've priced it at 77p - Amazon wouldn't let me make it free, otherwise I would have - on the age-old philosophy of drawing you in with the first one
Others may wish to be more bold !
I've doubled up there too and that is a serious wedge....
Personally, I'd leave it, but thought it worth mentioning.
Is I what did.