politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Generally the oldies are the key group for UKIP yet in the ComRes Rochester poll they give Reckless a lead of just 1%
Let there be no doubt – the UKIP donor funded ComRes Rochester poll was terrible news for the Tories coming as it has just before the party announces the result of its all-postal primary on who should be the candidate.
IIRC there was a similar pattern in Clacton, albeit with everything more slanted towards UKIP. I guess the Tories have a big chunk of loyal elderly supporters who wouldn't consider switching, even when their MP does.
After exhaustive analysis of the Poll, OGH manages to find something that can somehow be construed to be negative for UKIP.
If UKIPs lead among oldies is only 1% but its overall lead is 13%, then this is further proof, if indeed further proof is needed, that UKIPs appeal has considerably widened from its traditional core, which is hardly bad news for them.
Their support does indeed have a large number of previous non voters (as rob ford noted in his tweets repeated above), however that is hardly surprising as they represent those disenfranchised by the the Conlabirals, particularly on social issues. They will turn out alright - with relish.
The backwoodsmen who last appeared in 1992 and did for Kinnock are about to speak again and the establishment is horrified.
Mike do you have the unweighted figures without the 2010 non-voters?
I'm not sure this poll is worth that much in its current format given reliance on previous non-voters. As Rob says, the chances of them turning out in a late November by election are very slim.
16% difference in the 25-34 bracket, as was alluded to yesterday, UKIP has the image of a uneducated elderly male party, but that isn't born out by the facts, it seems to be more a early middle-aged, C2 male party.
After exhaustive analysis of the Poll, OGH manages to find something that can somehow be construed to be negative for UKIP.
If UKIPs lead among oldies is only 1% but its overall lead is 13%, then this is further proof, if indeed further proof is needed, that UKIPs appeal has considerably widened from its traditional core, which is hardly bad news for them.
Their support does indeed have a large number of previous non voters (as rob ford noted in his tweets repeated above), however that is hardly surprising as they represent those disenfranchised by the the Conlabirals, particularly on social issues. They will turn out alright - with relish.
The backwoodsmen who last appeared in 1992 and did for Kinnock are about to speak again and the establishment is horrified.
In this seat, UKIP has an impressive level of support across all age cohorts and social classes.
Not sure there's anything in the poll for Labour despite an earlier thread on how good their candidate is. Whatever happens it all suggests a very messy GE next year.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
16% difference in the 25-34 bracket, as was alluded to yesterday, UKIP has the image of a uneducated elderly male party, but that isn't born out by the facts, it seems to be more a early middle-aged, C2 male party.
Hmmm - not the most reliable group when it comes to turning up at the poll.
After exhaustive analysis of the Poll, OGH manages to find something that can somehow be construed to be negative for UKIP.
If UKIPs lead among oldies is only 1% but its overall lead is 13%, then this is further proof, if indeed further proof is needed, that UKIPs appeal has considerably widened from its traditional core, which is hardly bad news for them.
Their support does indeed have a large number of previous non voters (as rob ford noted in his tweets repeated above), however that is hardly surprising as they represent those disenfranchised by the the Conlabirals, particularly on social issues. They will turn out alright - with relish.
The backwoodsmen who last appeared in 1992 and did for Kinnock are about to speak again and the establishment is horrified.
Disagree. Strongly suggests a heavy element of mid-term protest vote and by-elections were ever thus. I suspect Reckless will win this battle but not the GE war.
Their support does indeed have a large number of previous non voters (as rob ford noted in his tweets repeated above), however that is hardly surprising as they represent those disenfranchised by the the Conlabirals, particularly on social issues. They will turn out alright - with relish.
We heard similar levels of confidence from Yes in Scotland, bt that didn't happen
Disagree. Strongly suggests a heavy element of mid-term protest vote and by-elections were ever thus. I suspect Reckless will win this battle but not the GE war.
I think a lot of that will come down to the atmosphere at the time of the GE, the sense I get from a lot of UKIP leaning voters and would-be voters is as much of rage as anything else. Rage, no matter how inchoate is a powerful motivator. I would think all its going to take to get quite a good turnout from those sitting on their hands in despair at the main parties is for events such as Rotherham to continue to appear whilst the establishment does nothing, or the security situation to deteriorate markedly, or another scandal like the trojan horse schools to be uncovered.
I suppose a woman's proper place is at home, eh? Having women in work is a bad thing, breaks down society, etc, etc.
They should only vote as their husbands say (in fact, giving them the vote in the first place was a bad idea - damn you, George Cave!) Women should not be taught science at schools, and should just do home economics and flower arranging. Abortion should be banned, as without many kids they won't have enough to do, and may stray. Divorce law should go back to the Victorian system. (collapses in a faint from excessive manliness)
To answer your post: the more women in work, the better. If a family decide one or other parent stays at home to look after children, fair enough: that is their decision. But the barriers that stop women (and it is mainly women) from going back to work when they want to should be addressed.
Likewise, if fathers want to stay at home and look after the children instead of their mothers, they should be free to do so.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I realise the non voters may be harder to reach, but has anyone ever tried to establish whether people ..... especially the oldies .....who didn’t vote in 2010 were also non-voters in 2005.
I realise the non voters may be harder to reach, but has anyone ever tried to establish whether people ..... especially the oldies .....who didn’t vote in 2010 were also non-voters in 2005.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
So is Laura Perrins a boorish lout too?
All that will result from higher subsidies to parents for childcare is childcare providers upping their prices, just as landlords tailor their rent to housing benefit levels. And they call themselves conservative.
Meanwhile mothers of under 5 s go exhausted to work, wracked with anguish at leaving their little ones with strangers on minimum wage all day. Nice society.
Lets imagine for a second that for whatever reason you are a voter with the settled view that you dont want your country to be in the EU. Who do you realistically vote for ?
If you vote for Dave you might get your referendum, but in 2017 nothing will have been agreed with any other government, nothing will have been ratified, no treaties will have been changed. What you will have will be Dave's proposition, what he hopes to get, which will be far more than he will actually get, and he may actually get nothing of any significance. You will be voting on a wish and a promise, which will be used to try and close down any future vote on the subject for the next decade.
If you vote for Ed you won't get your referendum, but the option will be open for a later government to address the issue as the "people won't have spoken"
If you vote for Nigel, you will still either get no referendum, or a referendum on a wish and a prayer, since Nigel won't lead a government. But there is a chance that someone will need Nigel's votes and he will get some leverage, and you know that someone will be in parliament asking the sort of questions you want asked and trying to stop inconvenient issues being swept under the carpet.
If you dont think that EU membership is the real issue, you could substitute Immigration into the above, Ed won't do anything, Dave will talk a good game but not actually do anything, Nigel might become enough of a thorn in the establishments side to make something happen, or at least draw attention to things not happening.
UKIP is a coalition of the angry and the disenfranchised, they know Ed won't do anything, they think Dave will talk a good line and then not do anything either, the hope Nigel will be able to do something, or failing that slow down the others failure to do something, or failing that just give the establishment a damn good kicking for failing to provide them with a real option which makes them feel enfranchised.
I realise the non voters may be harder to reach, but has anyone ever tried to establish whether people ..... especially the oldies .....who didn’t vote in 2010 were also non-voters in 2005.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
So is Laura Perrins a boorish lout too?
All that will result from higher subsidies to parents for childcare is childcare providers upping their prices, just as landlords tailor their rent to housing benefit levels. And they call themselves conservative.
Meanwhile mothers of under 5 s go exhausted to work, wracked with anguish at leaving their little ones with strangers on minimum wage all day. Nice society.
Give them a choice: let either mother or father stay at home, or let them both work and help them with childcare.
Your vision of society appears rather restrictive to women. Nice society ...
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
All that will result from higher subsidies to parents for childcare is childcare providers upping their prices, just as landlords tailor their rent to housing benefit levels. And they call themselves conservative.
Meanwhile mothers of under 5 s go exhausted to work, wracked with anguish at leaving their little ones with strangers on minimum wage all day. Nice society.
They aren't being forced. The opportunity is being offered. There's a big difference, to do with choice. Your attitude is a stark reminder that the further to the right you go, so freedom is quashed. Extremists are ever thus.
The only interesting comment you have made today is the one about being 'conservative.' Although not an original idea, the word conservative is indeed a misnomer for the kind of free market entrepreneurial beliefs which drive much of the party.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
As long as women clean behind the fridge before they go to work everyone should be happy.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
Lets imagine for a second that for whatever reason you are a voter with the settled view that you dont want your country to be in the EU. Who do you realistically vote for ?
AS quoted here ad infinitum, the people who put this as a priority when asked what is important is pretty small. So maybe the answer to your question won't matter much?
(That's not to pre-empt the result of a referendum. )
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
As long as women clean behind the fridge before they go to work everyone should be happy.
As Dennis Thatcher said, I wear the trousers in my household. I wash and iron them too.
Not a bad poll for the Tories considering they haven't even selected their candidate yet. And looks like Labour will be squeezed down to close to 15% - hopefully many will split for the blues.
AS quoted here ad infinitum, the people who put this as a priority when asked what is important is pretty small. So maybe the answer to your question won't matter much?
(That's not to pre-empt the result of a referendum. )
I know its quoted here, and its disingenuous in the extreme, people might not care that much about the EU directly, but they care intensely about a number of items which are directly connected. Right now immigration is at the top of the list, immigration is totalled tied to EU membership, you can't have any sort of intellectually honest discussion about restricting immigration when you are a member of the EU, because you can't stop immigration from other member states, and because some member states are handing out passports effectively "no questions asked" to people who are in transit to the UK from non-member states.
Does anyone remember whether 2010 non-voters made up a substantial chunk of Carswell's support in Clacton? Did he subsequently underperform the opinion polls - possibly as a result?
Seems to me that the polls and the result at Clacton should provide evidence one way or another on this question.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
In this case it's more probable that the Greens are at the bottom of any unpleasantness.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
You must live inside a very warped worldview if you think this attack and hatred of UKIP are the result of David Cameron and Chukka Umunna.
Let me assure you that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stirring hate without any help from outside.
And the last time I was in Brighton it didn't strike me as fertile ground for Conservative party activism. Just a thought.
AS quoted here ad infinitum, the people who put this as a priority when asked what is important is pretty small. So maybe the answer to your question won't matter much?
(That's not to pre-empt the result of a referendum. )
I know its quoted here, and its disingenuous in the extreme, people might not care that much about the EU directly, but they care intensely about a number of items which are directly connected. Right now immigration is at the top of the list, immigration is totalled tied to EU membership, you can't have any sort of intellectually honest discussion about restricting immigration when you are a member of the EU, because you can't stop immigration from other member states, and because some member states are handing out passports effectively "no questions asked" to people who are in transit to the UK from non-member states.
I agree that for many immigration is the number one- and if they're going to vote for UKIP that will be the deciding factor. They won't care about the details of whether or when a referendum could happen because they feel that UKIP will do something about it.
I'm not convinced Farage wants an intellectually honest discussion. I think Carswell probably does.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
In this case it's more probable that the Greens are at the bottom of any unpleasantness.
You don't know Brighton then.
Lots [relatively] of anarchists in Brighton. They drove the SWP off the University campus following the SWPs rape scandals.
It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
That's the sort of argument that the attacker of the UKIP stall would have used to justify the attack - that UKIP create an atmosphere of hate against immigrants that encourages attacks against them.
Thought that the parallel in the arguments used was interesting.
It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
That's the sort of argument that the attacker of the UKIP stall would have used to justify the attack - that UKIP create an atmosphere of hate against immigrants that encourages attacks against them.
Thought that the parallel in the arguments used was interesting.
According to the link the attacker said nothing. For all we know he was a freelance idiot rather than an attentive listener to any parties spokespeople.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
In this case it's more probable that the Greens are at the bottom of any unpleasantness.
"More probable" = "I haven't got any evidence but I'm going to smear them anyway"
I'm not convinced Farage wants an intellectually honest discussion. I think Carswell probably does.
I think Farage's pitch has the advantage of being simple, to the point of being simplistic, there is nothing dishonest about saying they want to leave the EU, and that having done so they will impose quotas or point systems or whatever, there may be fallout from that decision but no one is denying that. The problem Dave has is he is promising stuff that he and everyone else knows he can't deliver, and the British public are sick to the back teeth of bullshit at the moment.
Immigration is the number one concern for me too. Allowing freedom of movement for me, and for people I choose to hire is by far the single most important factor in me choosing my vote.
Oh wait, you have a different immigration concern.
Their support does indeed have a large number of previous non voters (as rob ford noted in his tweets repeated above), however that is hardly surprising as they represent those disenfranchised by the the Conlabirals, particularly on social issues. They will turn out alright - with relish.
We heard similar levels of confidence from Yes in Scotland, bt that didn't happen
They did turn out in Scotland: the turnout in Yes areas was massive compared with Westminster or Holyrood elections, never mind anything else; what Yes didn't anticipate was that the No voters would turn out with even greater numbers. A turnout in the high 70s or low 80s looks enormous set against any recent alternative *except* what happened elsewhere on the same day.
On topic, a very pertinant point made by Rob Ford in the tweets quoted in the intro.
The overall level of reported certainty to vote is far too high (as it always is in these things). I'd be surprised if the final turnout reaches the proportion saying they're 10/10 sure to turn out, never mind once appropriately weighted numbers are added in for those further down the certainties. If UKIP's support comes from DNV's and sub-10/10's then while their vote has broad support, there does have to be a question as to whether it will make it to the polls in the numbers suggested.
Also worth noting that there's a bigger LD-Con than LD-Lab swing reported (though both trail LD-UKIP).
Interesting overnight news on poll. I'm taking this with a big pinch of salt if so many non-voters are needed for UKIP to win, especially now we might see anti-UKIP tactical voting.
I'm keeping my money on Tories for time being.
Though you can get 27/1 on Labour on Betfair this morning.
Immigration is the number one concern for me too. Allowing freedom of movement for me, and for people I choose to hire is by far the single most important factor in me choosing my vote.
Oh wait, you have a different immigration concern.
I was discussing this with my (immigrant) wife only a day or two ago, whilst I played with my adopted (immigrant) daughter, for obvious reasons she had no problem with the immigration of people that contribute to the country economically or socially, but was very strongly against people coming to the UK to claim benefits, or to become a long term burden on services, and even more strongly against people coming to the country, committing a crime and then us being unable to deport them, I wouldn't be surprised if she voted UKIP.
This by election will be fascinating. If UKIP win by 1% (Or the Tories win) then we shall know to follow ICM's methodology for them at the GE in terms of vote %.
Immigration is the number one concern for me too. Allowing freedom of movement for me, and for people I choose to hire is by far the single most important factor in me choosing my vote.
Oh wait, you have a different immigration concern.
I was discussing this with my (immigrant) wife only a day or two ago, whilst I played with my adopted (immigrant) daughter, for obvious reasons she had no problem with the immigration of people that contribute to the country economically or socially, but was very strongly against people coming to the UK to claim benefits, or to become a long term burden on services, and even more strongly against people coming to the country, committing a crime and then us being unable to deport them, I wouldn't be surprised if she voted UKIP.
The solution, then, is what I wrote yesterday:
Full access to benefits requires five years of NI contributions. And I'm including Brits in this.
Immigration is the number one concern for me too. Allowing freedom of movement for me, and for people I choose to hire is by far the single most important factor in me choosing my vote.
Oh wait, you have a different immigration concern.
To unpack that post: your personal convenience and the profitability of your business are the only factors in your view of the politics of immigration. Any other consideration is snidely dismissed as "different". You are all right, Jack.
Are absolutely all views that immigration is less than 100% excellent subject to that blanket dismissal? There's a woman on r4 just now whose 12 year old daughter was abducted by men of subcontinental origin. Do you dismiss her views out of hand, and is she merely deluded, or actually evil, to hold them?
Immigration is the number one concern for me too. Allowing freedom of movement for me, and for people I choose to hire is by far the single most important factor in me choosing my vote.
Oh wait, you have a different immigration concern.
I was discussing this with my (immigrant) wife only a day or two ago, whilst I played with my adopted (immigrant) daughter, for obvious reasons she had no problem with the immigration of people that contribute to the country economically or socially, but was very strongly against people coming to the UK to claim benefits, or to become a long term burden on services, and even more strongly against people coming to the country, committing a crime and then us being unable to deport them, I wouldn't be surprised if she voted UKIP.
The solution, then, is what I wrote yesterday:
Full access to benefits requires five years of NI contributions. And I'm including Brits in this.
Some benefits already have NI restrictions e.g. Contributory ESA (employment Support), for those too ill to work - needs 2 or 3 of years NI and needs to have been the last two tax years.
There is no moral justification for any form of immigration control, or indeed for national borders of any kind. Indeed, there is no moral justification for any of us to prefer the company of people who speak our native tongue to that of those who don't.
Morality is completely impractical. I have no difficulty with people advocating borders and/or immigration control so long as they acknowledge that by doing so they have surrendered any claim to be regarded as moral agents. It is, after all, my own position.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
What an extraordinary and disgraceful comment. Whatever is inside your head really ought to stay there.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
You must live inside a very warped worldview if you think this attack and hatred of UKIP are the result of David Cameron and Chukka Umunna.
Let me assure you that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stirring hate without any help from outside.
And the last time I was in Brighton it didn't strike me as fertile ground for Conservative party activism. Just a thought.
So rather than condemning the attack your first instinct is to say the hate is deserved. The Tories really are the nasty party.
Also I think the moves on Betfair yesterday were being done by people with access to the embargoed polls. The law on this should be changed to http://www.out-law.com/page-830 the same as share dealing Price sensitive data.
Not sure there's anything in the poll for Labour despite an earlier thread on how good their candidate is. Whatever happens it all suggests a very messy GE next year.
And gives the lie to the '650 individual contests' theory. The great majority of votes in the great majority of seats will be determined by national factors.
There is no moral justification for any form of immigration control, or indeed for national borders of any kind. Indeed, there is no moral justification for any of us to prefer the company of people who speak our native tongue to that of those who don't.
Morality is completely impractical. I have no difficulty with people advocating borders and/or immigration control so long as they acknowledge that by doing so they have surrendered any claim to be regarded as moral agents. It is, after all, my own position.
They haven't surrendered that claim, this is just not primarily a moral question.
If a UKIP stall/those manning it has been attacked that's obviously reprehensible. A democratic debate cannot exist when you have Milo and Clodius marauding and attacking people who hold the 'wrong' views.
Likewise, it was not a good day for democracy when Farage was surrounded by a mob, shouted down and forced to flee Scotland.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
As long as women clean behind the fridge before they go to work everyone should be happy.
As Dennis Thatcher said, I wear the trousers in my household. I wash and iron them too.
Lets imagine for a second that for whatever reason you are a voter with the settled view that you dont want your country to be in the EU. Who do you realistically vote for ?
If you vote for Dave you might get your referendum, but in 2017 nothing will have been agreed with any other government, nothing will have been ratified, no treaties will have been changed. What you will have will be Dave's proposition, what he hopes to get, which will be far more than he will actually get, and he may actually get nothing of any significance. You will be voting on a wish and a promise, which will be used to try and close down any future vote on the subject for the next decade.
If you vote for Ed you won't get your referendum, but the option will be open for a later government to address the issue as the "people won't have spoken"
If you vote for Nigel, you will still either get no referendum, or a referendum on a wish and a prayer, since Nigel won't lead a government. But there is a chance that someone will need Nigel's votes and he will get some leverage, and you know that someone will be in parliament asking the sort of questions you want asked and trying to stop inconvenient issues being swept under the carpet.
If you dont think that EU membership is the real issue, you could substitute Immigration into the above, Ed won't do anything, Dave will talk a good game but not actually do anything, Nigel might become enough of a thorn in the establishments side to make something happen, or at least draw attention to things not happening.
UKIP is a coalition of the angry and the disenfranchised, they know Ed won't do anything, they think Dave will talk a good line and then not do anything either, the hope Nigel will be able to do something, or failing that slow down the others failure to do something, or failing that just give the establishment a damn good kicking for failing to provide them with a real option which makes them feel enfranchised.
Democracy, eh.
There is one flaw in your argument which is otherwise acute.
If you have a settled view that you want to leave the EU, then vote to get your referendum from Dave and see how many people agree with you.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
What an extraordinary and disgraceful comment. Whatever is inside your head really ought to stay there.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
You must live inside a very warped worldview if you think this attack and hatred of UKIP are the result of David Cameron and Chukka Umunna.
Let me assure you that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stirring hate without any help from outside.
And the last time I was in Brighton it didn't strike me as fertile ground for Conservative party activism. Just a thought.
Until I put you right about a week ago, you thought Rochester was the first open primary ever held in this country, which slightly limits my faith in your instinctive feel for the Conservative ground game. Well done with the hating, though.
We all remember when the Dutch lefty establishment incited the murder of Pim Fortuyn. The sort of rhetoric directed at Ukip is dispicable.
Can you provide examples of the Dutch lefty establishment inciting the murder of Pim Fortuyn, or are you just making that up because you do not like people who are left-wing?
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
What an extraordinary and disgraceful comment. Whatever is inside your head really ought to stay there.
Oh, come on. When the media and mainstream politicians constantly undergo a smear campaign about UKIP's views being racist, neo-fascist and illegitimate, it means that their supporters out there feel it is acceptable to take extreme measures to silence them. The fact no-one else here has condemned the attack says it all. Audreyanne even responded that they brought hate on themselves.
I have cleaned behind my fridge - more than once. With the cat's food bowl next to it I felt that the consequences of not doing so would be potentially horrifying.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
As long as women clean behind the fridge before they go to work everyone should be happy.
As Dennis Thatcher said, I wear the trousers in my household. I wash and iron them too.
We all remember when the Dutch lefty establishment incited the murder of Pim Fortuyn. The sort of rhetoric directed at Ukip is dispicable.
Can you provide examples of the Dutch lefty establishment inciting the murder of Pim Fortuyn, or are you just making that up because you do not like people who are left-wing?
@FalseFlag is unhappy because foreigners are taking his jobs and his university places.
Not sure why anyone on here should explicitly condemn physical attacks on anyone of any party or political persuasion before entering the debate. Shouldn't we all take it as a given that in the absence of evidence to the contrary everyone thinks such attacks are disgraceful?
For current and future reference that is my position.
We all remember when the Dutch lefty establishment incited the murder of Pim Fortuyn. The sort of rhetoric directed at Ukip is dispicable.
Can you provide examples of the Dutch lefty establishment inciting the murder of Pim Fortuyn, or are you just making that up because you do not like people who are left-wing?
If you could see what I get in my mailbox every now and then, regarding threats, and so on, well that doesn't exactly cheer you up, and the Dutch government – and I think it's a 'bloody shame' – helps create a climate demonizing me personally. And if something were to happen to me – and I'm glad that you're giving me the chance (to say this) – if something were to happen to me, then they will be partly responsible, and they can't just walk away saying "I'm not the one who committed the attack." They helped to create this climate (this atmosphere), and it needs to stop. Appearance on the Dutch-TV program "Jensen!", a couple of months before being assassinated.
There is one flaw in your argument which is otherwise acute.
If you have a settled view that you want to leave the EU, then vote to get your referendum from Dave and see how many people agree with you.
That is the democratic process.
If a renegotiation was held, and concrete offer was on the table, I would agree with you entirely, but its not.
The more likely prospect is that the electorate is asked to vote IN/OUT on the basis of Dave's proposed negotiating position, which will be insanely optimistic judging by his current and previous promises that had no hope of being delivered. After the referendum two things will happen. Firstly, most if not all of his requirements will get rejected, after which he will affect his usual hangdog expression and say "Sorry chaps, I tried, but those nasty Europeans wouldn't play along, happily you have already agreed to stay in Europe". Secondly the other countries will have absolutely no incentive to accede to the UK requirements, as the referendum will have already happened and presumably been passed, and hence there is no risk. The British public are asked to vote IN/OUT on the basis of a pig in a poke.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
What an extraordinary and disgraceful comment. Whatever is inside your head really ought to stay there.
The fact no-one else here has condemned the attack says it all.
No, it really doesn't. I am an individual of exactly zero consequence in wider society and politics, and I don't interact with this board in order to make quasi-official announcements at your beck and call. I don't take myself nearly so seriously.
I have cleaned behind my fridge - more than once. With the cat's food bowl next to it I felt that the consequences of not doing so would be potentially horrifying.
Only someone as blinkered as you could see greater access to childcare for women who want to work as 'forcing' them out to work and putting their children in 'orphanages.'
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
I have to say that in my experience boorish male louts are much more fun than self-righteous hectoring housewives.
As long as women clean behind the fridge before they go to work everyone should be happy.
As Dennis Thatcher said, I wear the trousers in my household. I wash and iron them too.
We all remember when the Dutch lefty establishment incited the murder of Pim Fortuyn. The sort of rhetoric directed at Ukip is dispicable.
Can you provide examples of the Dutch lefty establishment inciting the murder of Pim Fortuyn, or are you just making that up because you do not like people who are left-wing?
If you could see what I get in my mailbox every now and then, regarding threats, and so on, well that doesn't exactly cheer you up, and the Dutch government – and I think it's a 'bloody shame' – helps create a climate demonizing me personally. And if something were to happen to me – and I'm glad that you're giving me the chance (to say this) – if something were to happen to me, then they will be partly responsible, and they can't just walk away saying "I'm not the one who committed the attack." They helped to create this climate (this atmosphere), and it needs to stop. Appearance on the Dutch-TV program "Jensen!", a couple of months before being assassinated.
Given the long history of violence perpetrated by the extreme left this demonisation needs to stop.
So no evidence at all then.
But I do agree that both the extreme left and the extreme right across the world have long histories of violent behaviour. However, the idea that either side needs to be incited by anyone is pretty laughable. They behave violently because they are thugs that have little interest in the individual.
There is one flaw in your argument which is otherwise acute.
If you have a settled view that you want to leave the EU, then vote to get your referendum from Dave and see how many people agree with you.
That is the democratic process.
If a renegotiation was held, and concrete offer was on the table, I would agree with you entirely, but its not.
The more likely prospect is that the electorate is asked to vote IN/OUT on the basis of Dave's proposed negotiating position, which will be insanely optimistic judging by his current and previous promises that had no hope of being delivered. After the referendum two things will happen. Firstly, most if not all of his requirements will get rejected, after which he will affect his usual hangdog expression and say "Sorry chaps, I tried, but those nasty Europeans wouldn't play along, happily you have already agreed to stay in Europe". Secondly the other countries will have absolutely no incentive to accede to the UK requirements, as the referendum will have already happened and presumably been passed, and hence there is no risk. The British public are asked to vote IN/OUT on the basis of a pig in a poke.
I would trust the electorate a tad more. If, come the day of the referendum, Dave says: "bear with me I'm almost there, honestly." then people have the right to call b******t. Or think to themselves: OK, perhaps something is coming.
It is a politician's promise so should be treated as they all are (which is usually according to one's own preference for the party the politician belongs to).
You are right of course that the likelihood is that come the referendum nothing will have been settled. But that's ok also. People will have the facts, such as they are intelligible, in front of them and will make a decision.
@MikeK awful to hear. I'm sure the supporters of other parties will join me in condemning the attack. It's very sad that political leaders like David Cameron and Chukka Umunna have created an atmosphere of hate against UKIP that encourages such attacks to happen.
What an extraordinary and disgraceful comment. Whatever is inside your head really ought to stay there.
Oh, come on. When the media and mainstream politicians constantly undergo a smear campaign about UKIP's views being racist, neo-fascist and illegitimate, it means that their supporters out there feel it is acceptable to take extreme measures to silence them. The fact no-one else here has condemned the attack says it all. Audreyanne even responded that they brought hate on themselves.
I have no problem condemning such attacks but to pretend that named politicians who have criticised UKIP are responsible is simply unjustified. For one thing it detaches from the perpetrators responsibility for their actions. I defend the right of UKIP to free speech when I condemn their message. I don't blame Farage for attacks on Muslims.
Comments
If UKIPs lead among oldies is only 1% but its overall lead is 13%, then this is further proof, if indeed further proof is needed, that UKIPs appeal has considerably widened from its traditional core, which is hardly bad news for them.
Their support does indeed have a large number of previous non voters (as rob ford noted in his tweets repeated above), however that is hardly surprising as they represent those disenfranchised by the the Conlabirals, particularly on social issues. They will turn out alright - with relish.
The backwoodsmen who last appeared in 1992 and did for Kinnock are about to speak again and the establishment is horrified.
I'm not sure this poll is worth that much in its current format given reliance on previous non-voters. As Rob says, the chances of them turning out in a late November by election are very slim.
We might see a low overall turnout too.
Force mothers out to work and their children into day orphanages. You utter utter ****** Gideon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/11181535/George-Osborne-gets-stay-at-home-mothers-back-to-work.html
I imagine you fit the UKIP profile perfectly: boorish male lout.
EdM gets 53 % of Labour VI and 38% of 2010
I had thought Dan Hodges had been getting more sensible of late, but this just sounds like wishful thinking on his part
They should only vote as their husbands say (in fact, giving them the vote in the first place was a bad idea - damn you, George Cave!) Women should not be taught science at schools, and should just do home economics and flower arranging. Abortion should be banned, as without many kids they won't have enough to do, and may stray. Divorce law should go back to the Victorian system. (collapses in a faint from excessive manliness)
To answer your post: the more women in work, the better. If a family decide one or other parent stays at home to look after children, fair enough: that is their decision. But the barriers that stop women (and it is mainly women) from going back to work when they want to should be addressed.
Likewise, if fathers want to stay at home and look after the children instead of their mothers, they should be free to do so.
All that will result from higher subsidies to parents for childcare is childcare providers upping their prices, just as landlords tailor their rent to housing benefit levels. And they call themselves conservative.
Meanwhile mothers of under 5 s go exhausted to work, wracked with anguish at leaving their little ones with strangers on minimum wage all day. Nice society.
If you vote for Dave you might get your referendum, but in 2017 nothing will have been agreed with any other government, nothing will have been ratified, no treaties will have been changed. What you will have will be Dave's proposition, what he hopes to get, which will be far more than he will actually get, and he may actually get nothing of any significance. You will be voting on a wish and a promise, which will be used to try and close down any future vote on the subject for the next decade.
If you vote for Ed you won't get your referendum, but the option will be open for a later government to address the issue as the "people won't have spoken"
If you vote for Nigel, you will still either get no referendum, or a referendum on a wish and a prayer, since Nigel won't lead a government. But there is a chance that someone will need Nigel's votes and he will get some leverage, and you know that someone will be in parliament asking the sort of questions you want asked and trying to stop inconvenient issues being swept under the carpet.
If you dont think that EU membership is the real issue, you could substitute Immigration into the above, Ed won't do anything, Dave will talk a good game but not actually do anything, Nigel might become enough of a thorn in the establishments side to make something happen, or at least draw attention to things not happening.
UKIP is a coalition of the angry and the disenfranchised, they know Ed won't do anything, they think Dave will talk a good line and then not do anything either, the hope Nigel will be able to do something, or failing that slow down the others failure to do something, or failing that just give the establishment a damn good kicking for failing to provide them with a real option which makes them feel enfranchised.
Your vision of society appears rather restrictive to women. Nice society ...
The only interesting comment you have made today is the one about being 'conservative.' Although not an original idea, the word conservative is indeed a misnomer for the kind of free market entrepreneurial beliefs which drive much of the party.
(That's not to pre-empt the result of a referendum. )
UKIPs enemies resort to thuggery in Brighton:
Teddy Clark @TeddyUKIPClark 3m3 minutes ago
Ukip candidate attacked at party stall http://ln.is/www.theargus.co.uk/n/R8yrw …
Seems to me that the polls and the result at Clacton should provide evidence one way or another on this question.
Electoral Commission not fit for purpose and should be replaced.
Clearly UKIP are in the lead but they are not out of sight.. today's news and vote number will be more significant.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kxq4bnponi/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-211014.pdf
Muslim convert who shot Canadian soldier dead had passport seized & is the son of Canada's immigration chief! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804099/Pictured-Recent-Muslim-convert-Michael-Zehaf-Bibeau-shot-dead-solider-opened-fire-Canadian-Parliament.html …
and now off for a while.
Let me assure you that UKIP are doing an excellent job of stirring hate without any help from outside.
And the last time I was in Brighton it didn't strike me as fertile ground for Conservative party activism. Just a thought.
I'm not convinced Farage wants an intellectually honest discussion. I think Carswell probably does.
Lots [relatively] of anarchists in Brighton. They drove the SWP off the University campus following the SWPs rape scandals.
Thought that the parallel in the arguments used was interesting.
Today's Labour 2010 VI retention is at 75%, a low for 2014 and down from a January average of 85.5%.
Immigration is the number one concern for me too. Allowing freedom of movement for me, and for people I choose to hire is by far the single most important factor in me choosing my vote.
Oh wait, you have a different immigration concern.
Rochester won't see that sort of turnout.
The overall level of reported certainty to vote is far too high (as it always is in these things). I'd be surprised if the final turnout reaches the proportion saying they're 10/10 sure to turn out, never mind once appropriately weighted numbers are added in for those further down the certainties. If UKIP's support comes from DNV's and sub-10/10's then while their vote has broad support, there does have to be a question as to whether it will make it to the polls in the numbers suggested.
Also worth noting that there's a bigger LD-Con than LD-Lab swing reported (though both trail LD-UKIP).
Interesting overnight news on poll. I'm taking this with a big pinch of salt if so many non-voters are needed for UKIP to win, especially now we might see anti-UKIP tactical voting.
I'm keeping my money on Tories for time being.
Though you can get 27/1 on Labour on Betfair this morning.
F1: Caterham teeters on the brink and owners old and new argue, and the new owners threaten to leave:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula-one/29733418
I think Labour is squeezed from 20%.
Full access to benefits requires five years of NI contributions. And I'm including Brits in this.
Are absolutely all views that immigration is less than 100% excellent subject to that blanket dismissal? There's a woman on r4 just now whose 12 year old daughter was abducted by men of subcontinental origin. Do you dismiss her views out of hand, and is she merely deluded, or actually evil, to hold them?
Morality is completely impractical. I have no difficulty with people advocating borders and/or immigration control so long as they acknowledge that by doing so they have surrendered any claim to be regarded as moral agents. It is, after all, my own position.
Middle class metropolitans and ethnic minorities?
If the Scots aren't any longer and the lesser skilled aren't any longer, then what remains?
The grumpy North?
Also I think the moves on Betfair yesterday were being done by people with access to the embargoed polls. The law on this should be changed to http://www.out-law.com/page-830 the same as share dealing Price sensitive data.
2001 is being theatrically re-released on November 28th. Potentially a glimpse back thirteen years to what could have been:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfF0vxKZRhc
Likewise, it was not a good day for democracy when Farage was surrounded by a mob, shouted down and forced to flee Scotland.
I can honestly say that I've never cleaned behind any fridge.
There is one flaw in your argument which is otherwise acute.
If you have a settled view that you want to leave the EU, then vote to get your referendum from Dave and see how many people agree with you.
That is the democratic process.
I'll change my name.
Is this a Director's Cut or some kind of digital remaster?
For current and future reference that is my position.
Appearance on the Dutch-TV program "Jensen!", a couple of months before being assassinated.
You can watch the YouTube if you want.
http://www.isteve.com/2002_Did_Pim_Fortuyn_Have_It_Coming.htm
Given the long history of violence perpetrated by the extreme left this demonisation needs to stop.
The more likely prospect is that the electorate is asked to vote IN/OUT on the basis of Dave's proposed negotiating position, which will be insanely optimistic judging by his current and previous promises that had no hope of being delivered. After the referendum two things will happen. Firstly, most if not all of his requirements will get rejected, after which he will affect his usual hangdog expression and say "Sorry chaps, I tried, but those nasty Europeans wouldn't play along, happily you have already agreed to stay in Europe". Secondly the other countries will have absolutely no incentive to accede to the UK requirements, as the referendum will have already happened and presumably been passed, and hence there is no risk. The British public are asked to vote IN/OUT on the basis of a pig in a poke.
We saw the attacks on UKIP's meetings during the Euro Elections.
They have lost the argument and violence is all they have left.
BTW, this is not a new occurrence, but the Tory Government stands by and does nothing. They really are the nasty party.
Chipping dried catfood off the floor, one of the pleasures of pet ownership... They're messy eaters.
But I do agree that both the extreme left and the extreme right across the world have long histories of violent behaviour. However, the idea that either side needs to be incited by anyone is pretty laughable. They behave violently because they are thugs that have little interest in the individual.
It is a politician's promise so should be treated as they all are (which is usually according to one's own preference for the party the politician belongs to).
You are right of course that the likelihood is that come the referendum nothing will have been settled. But that's ok also. People will have the facts, such as they are intelligible, in front of them and will make a decision.
Again, imperfect but not untypical politics.