More than happy to accommodate anyone who wants to take conservatives to beat Ukip in a Rochester match bet for the GE.
I'll give you 11/10 only Ukip and Con count
One at a time, your size
Lol! I don't think you are likely to be knocked over in the rush, Isam.
This is when it is a delight to be posting on a betting Site, rather than a straight political Site. There's only so much spin that can be put on the ball. The movement in the odds, or lack of it in this case, is the simplest and surest way of killing the spin.
If anybody seriously thinks Reckless is likely to lose in May they can make shedloads, either by selling UKIP on Sporting Index or laying the 1.57 'Over 5 Seats' on Betfair. Since neither price has moved since the poll was announced, we can take it that Reckless's chances remain undiminished.
It looks like he will win comfortably enough, which means he should go on to win again in May. That's what a punter would expect from LA's poll.
Let me know if you get any takers. I like a laugh.
PtP: selling UKIP on SPIN is a mugs game, because if you buy, then you are buying optionality. If you think of it as a probability distribution there is a substantial chunk of the probability that is at 20+, and your downside, even if UKIP got zero seats, is so minimal.
Therefore, even if you think the most likely outcome (50% on the probability distribution) is 6 seats, and the spread is 8-10, you should probably buy, because the odds you are being paid on the 5% of outcomes above 20 or 30 seats are so implicitly large.
Following on from Nuneaton, we have another marginal where the Greens have just selected a candidate for a constituency they didn't stand in last time, Hastings & Rye:
If the Tories hold Nuneaton and Hastings by tiny majorities it may be because of the Green interventions.
The Greens only stood in about half the seats last time and are aiming for about 75% this time. There will be a lot more seats with Green candidates this time around.
Eta - if the surge in membership continues then standing in even more seats than the target may well be possible
No one wants to back the Tories at odds against for Rochester at the GE, despite their crowing at this poll
Maybe they don't really believe it and are just distracting from the disaster that has been the Tory campaign, and their betting books
Nobody? Not a single person?!
Well you do surprise me young Samuel. I'd have thought you'd have taken thousands of pounds in bets by now. I can only conclude that all those posters indicating that Rochester would return a Conservative next May are either non-punters, or were merely trying to talk their team up. Shame on them!
On a more serious note, you and I have proper bets on the turnout being under 50%. I should say the uncompetitive nature of the contest is rather playing into our hands. What do you think?
I'm afraid the weather forecast is against us a bit though. Do we need to do a rain dance?
Yes I think the Unders are a good bet at anything shorter than 4/9
I can see UKIP potentially winning 8-10 seats in Essex and Kent alone, but outside of that I can only see 2 very strong chances of gains: Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth.
Sitting in a pub in Great Yarmouth right now and I am not from here. Always possible of course but i feel unlikely. No one talking about politics here at the moment which means focus will be in the 3 weeks Before GE
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats they have not won previously.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
I can see UKIP potentially winning 8-10 seats in Essex and Kent alone, but outside of that I can only see 2 very strong chances of gains: Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth.
They're 5/2 for Cannock Chase.
That's generous. If the local Conservatives opt to vote tactically, UKIP will win easily. I know that's quite a big 'if', but in this case it's a pretty compelling option.
The turnout in May will indeed be higher than on Thursday week. Those GE voters will include very few new UKIP voters, unless enthused by a new UKIP MP. By contrast, there'll be plenty who want to cast a vote to determine the shape of the next government but who aren't interested in what they may perceive as a vanity show of a by-election.
Are we sure about that though? By all accounts, UKIP are drawing disproportionately from people who are barely interested in politics, who might well only be motivated enough for (or perhaps even only be aware of) the real election rather than byelections.
Plus, I also think there's a chance that the increased media coverage during the election campaign for the mainstream parties could inadvertently drive up support for UKIP -- daily reminders to people of how much they hate the main politicians, being driven up the wall by their refusal to answer questions or speak in normal English, might make them even more determined to give the whole lot a slap.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
You are correct there, Peter. People just can't believe their own eyes or senses when it comes to UKIP: the facts must, just must, be wrong. It isn't happening has been the mantra of the Lab/Lib/Con supporters all year.
To those who were pointing out last night what a gent Bercow was/is and only doing his job, I thought about this opinion during the day and it occurred to me that those who were really good at being Speaker such as Betty Boothroyd, George Thomas and Bernard Wetherill, None of them would have behaved as Bercow did, words would have been had behind closed doors.
Bercow isn't up to the job, he should either go, or be forced out. All Bercow thinks about IMHO is Bercow. He doesn't know when to keep his trap shut.
And anyone who is in any doubt should read what Dan Hodges says happened. There is no reason not to believe its absolutely true.
The key section of the Hodges piece is this:
But legally, the statutory instrument still had to be passed to bring 11 elements of the 35 new justice measures into line with British legislation. The EAW wasn’t one of those measures, because it is already technically written into English law.
It seems clear to me that whatever way Bercow may have spun yesterday's proceedings as, the EAW was not up for a vote yesterday. I imagine that if Parliament had voted against the 11 measures then the Home Office would still have been able to push the EAW through because the EAW has already technically been written into English law as Hodges pieces acknowledges.
Hodges can make as much smoke and mirrors as he likes and write as many character assassinations of Bercow as floats his boat but it doesn't change the content of that paragraph. Cameron said that the EAW would be voted on and clearly if that paragraph is to be believed it was never in question yesterday.
Incidentally did you know that we can still opt in to the hundred or so Justice measures that May has declined at present but we can never opt out of the EAW once adopted. Yet again like free movement of Labour, the ECJ and the ECHR the government has now provided yet another stick with which to beat our membership of the EU. In fact when British citizens start being judged by the archaic standards of some European countries, I'm sure it will further the march to withdrawal no end
Okay, I am going to say this as someone who generally detests Tony Blair.
But good on him for actually going to Sierra Leone to see the Ebola crisis on the front line. No ifs, no buts, this was a great thing he has done. Hopefully this will continue to highlight the tragedy of what is happening in West Africa.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
You are correct there, Peter. People just can't believe their own eyes or senses when it comes to UKIP: the facts must, just must, be wrong. It isn't happening has been the mantra of the Lab/Lib/Con supporters all year.
The value is gradually getting squeezed out, Mike, but I reckon there's still some around. After Rochester I expect what's left to be snapped up.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Okay, I am going to say this as someone who generally detests Tony Blair.
But good on him for actually going to Sierra Leone to see the Ebola crisis on the front line. No ifs, no buts, this was a great thing he has done. Hopefully this will continue to highlight the tragedy of what is happening in West Africa.
Richard
You I think are an offshore worker.
I went to Congo 30 years ago. Went back there recently and nothing has changed , zero. I Just want to make the point and no doubt you have seem similar elsewhere or even here. The local governmental systems have to change.
I can see UKIP potentially winning 8-10 seats in Essex and Kent alone, but outside of that I can only see 2 very strong chances of gains: Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth.
They're 5/2 for Cannock Chase.
That's generous. If the local Conservatives opt to vote tactically, UKIP will win easily. I know that's quite a big 'if', but in this case it's a pretty compelling option.
I live in Cannock. Labour will retake this seat. That is flat, that is final. If UKIP come third, they will have done exceptionally well. There is no danger of local Conservatives voting tactically as they are still deluding themselves they will win. They are talking to themselves and reinforcing themselves in this fantasy as a result. I talk to swing voters and they are switching to Labour.
Longer term, I think Cannock will become a fairly safe Tory seat, a la Tamworth, simply because it's now where people who make money come to in order to escape from Birmingham. But there's a way to go before affluent voters in Heath Hayes, central Cannock and the outskirts of Rugeley commuting to Birmingham outnumber the urban dwellers of Rugeley town centre, Cannock's Pye Green Road and Lichfield Road area and Hednesford (who vote Labour).
The key for the Tories is that they have lost the lower middle-class vote/upper working class vote that backed Aidan Burley last time. But it hasn't gone to UKIP.
To those who were pointing out last night what a gent Bercow was/is and only doing his job, I thought about this opinion during the day and it occurred to me that those who were really good at being Speaker such as Betty Boothroyd, George Thomas and Bernard Wetherill, None of them would have behaved as Bercow did, words would have been had behind closed doors.
Bercow isn't up to the job, he should either go, or be forced out. All Bercow thinks about IMHO is Bercow. He doesn't know when to keep his trap shut.
And anyone who is in any doubt should read what Dan Hodges says happened. There is no reason not to believe its absolutely true.
The key section of the Hodges piece is this:
But legally, the statutory instrument still had to be passed to bring 11 elements of the 35 new justice measures into line with British legislation. The EAW wasn’t one of those measures, because it is already technically written into English law.
It seems clear to me that whatever way Bercow may have spun yesterday's proceedings as, the EAW was not up for a vote yesterday. I imagine that if Parliament had voted against the 11 measures then the Home Office would still have been able to push the EAW through because the EAW has already technically been written into English law as Hodges pieces acknowledges.
Hodges can make as much smoke and mirrors as he likes and write as many character assassinations of Bercow as floats his boat but it doesn't change the content of that paragraph. Cameron said that the EAW would be voted on and clearly if that paragraph is to be believed it was never in question yesterday.
Incidentally did you know that we can still opt in to the hundred or so Justice measures that May has declined at present but we can never opt out of the EAW once adopted. Yet again like free movement of Labour, the ECJ and the ECHR the government has now provided yet another stick with which to beat our membership of the EU. In fact when British citizens start being judged by the archaic standards of some European countries, I'm sure it will further the march to withdrawal no end
The issue is that Bercow is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events. It seems clear that Bercow is not given what DH says Bercow did. It matters not what anyone else was or was not doing (as has been suggested to me) Bercow is meant to control the House. He failed miserably because his own ego gets in the way.The sooner he goes the better. ANYONE eligible would be better than Bercow.
More than happy to accommodate anyone who wants to take conservatives to beat Ukip in a Rochester match bet for the GE.
I'll give you 11/10 only Ukip and Con count
One at a time, your size
Lol! I don't think you are likely to be knocked over in the rush, Isam.
This is when it is a delight to be posting on a betting Site, rather than a straight political Site. There's only so much spin that can be put on the ball. The movement in the odds, or lack of it in this case, is the simplest and surest way of killing the spin.
If anybody seriously thinks Reckless is likely to lose in May they can make shedloads, either by selling UKIP on Sporting Index or laying the 1.57 'Over 5 Seats' on Betfair. Since neither price has moved since the poll was announced, we can take it that Reckless's chances remain undiminished.
It looks like he will win comfortably enough, which means he should go on to win again in May. That's what a punter would expect from LA's poll.
Let me know if you get any takers. I like a laugh.
PtP: selling UKIP on SPIN is a mugs game, because if you buy, then you are buying optionality. If you think of it as a probability distribution there is a substantial chunk of the probability that is at 20+, and your downside, even if UKIP got zero seats, is so minimal.
Therefore, even if you think the most likely outcome (50% on the probability distribution) is 6 seats, and the spread is 8-10, you should probably buy, because the odds you are being paid on the 5% of outcomes above 20 or 30 seats are so implicitly large.
Yes, well I am rather aware of that, Robert and have been pointing it out myself ever since SPIN opened their spread markets. As you may guess, my remarks were somewhat tongue in cheek and aimed at those confidently predicting a Tory win in Rochester next May. Talking of which.....
Okay, I am going to say this as someone who generally detests Tony Blair.
But good on him for actually going to Sierra Leone to see the Ebola crisis on the front line. No ifs, no buts, this was a great thing he has done. Hopefully this will continue to highlight the tragedy of what is happening in West Africa.
Richard
You I think are an offshore worker.
I went to Congo 30 years ago. Went back there recently and nothing has changed , zero. I Just want to make the point and no doubt you have seem similar elsewhere or even here. The local governmental systems have to change.
Until then look for Band AId 2050
I was once an offshore worker. These days I do general geology and environment consultancy work. But I take your point entirely. I just thought praise from an opponent (and I am surely an opponent of Blair on almost every issue) was worth recording when he does something of real value.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Over half the Lincs CC UKIP councillors elected in 2013 including the majority in Boston/Skegness are now in a rival party . Whether the break away part or those remaining are the more BNP lite faction you can squabble amongst yourselves
To those who were pointing out last night what a gent Bercow was/is and only doing his job, I thought about this opinion during the day and it occurred to me that those who were really good at being Speaker such as Betty Boothroyd, George Thomas and Bernard Wetherill, None of them would have behaved as Bercow did, words would have been had behind closed doors.
Bercow isn't up to the job, he should either go, or be forced out. All Bercow thinks about IMHO is Bercow. He doesn't know when to keep his trap shut.
And anyone who is in any doubt should read what Dan Hodges says happened. There is no reason not to believe its absolutely true.
The key section of the Hodges piece is this:
But legally, the statutory instrument still had to be passed to bring 11 elements of the 35 new justice measures into line with British legislation. The EAW wasn’t one of those measures, because it is already technically written into English law.
It seems clear to me that whatever way Bercow may have spun yesterday's proceedings as, the EAW was not up for a vote yesterday. I imagine that if Parliament had voted against the 11 measures then the Home Office would still have been able to push the EAW through because the EAW has already technically been written into English law as Hodges pieces acknowledges.
Hodges can make as much smoke and mirrors as he likes and write as many character assassinations of Bercow as floats his boat but it doesn't change the content of that paragraph. Cameron said that the EAW would be voted on and clearly if that paragraph is to be believed it was never in question yesterday.
Incidentally did you know that we can still opt in to the hundred or so Justice measures that May has declined at present but we can never opt out of the EAW once adopted. Yet again like free movement of Labour, the ECJ and the ECHR the government has now provided yet another stick with which to beat our membership of the EU. In fact when British citizens start being judged by the archaic standards of some European countries, I'm sure it will further the march to withdrawal no end
The issue is that Bercow is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events. It seems clear that Bercow is not given what DH says Bercow did. It matters not what anyone else was or was not doing (as has been suggested to me) Bercow is meant to control the House. He failed miserably because his own ego gets in the way.The sooner he goes the better. ANYONE eligible would be better than Bercow.
One of Bercow's jobs is to protect the rights of backbenchers and the integrity of the systems of the Commons against Government abuse. He was clearly doing this last night.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Over half the Lincs CC UKIP councillors elected in 1983 including the majority in Boston/Skegness are now in a rival party . Whether the break away part or those remaining are the more BNP lite faction you can squabble amongst yourselves
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Over half the Lincs CC UKIP councillors elected in 1983 including the majority in Boston/Skegness are now in a rival party . Whether the break away part or those remaining are the more BNP lite faction you can squabble amongst yourselves
There were no UKIP councillors elected in 1983.
More to the point the councillors were kicked out or resigned the party due to racist comments they made or supported.
Now as I say I know you are incapable of understanding these basic principles but in that case you really have nothing of value to add to this debate.
Okay, I am going to say this as someone who generally detests Tony Blair.
But good on him for actually going to Sierra Leone to see the Ebola crisis on the front line. No ifs, no buts, this was a great thing he has done. Hopefully this will continue to highlight the tragedy of what is happening in West Africa.
Agreed.
I've recently discovered that this crisis is a bit closer to home for me than I'd thought. My oldest friend (known him since we were one year olds) is an army field nurse. I thought he was a bit safer now that we were out of Afghanistan (he had three tours there), but he's now in west Africa, helping to fight Ebola.
Okay, I am going to say this as someone who generally detests Tony Blair.
But good on him for actually going to Sierra Leone to see the Ebola crisis on the front line. No ifs, no buts, this was a great thing he has done. Hopefully this will continue to highlight the tragedy of what is happening in West Africa.
Agreed.
I've recently discovered that this crisis is a bit closer to home for me than I'd thought. My oldest friend (known him since we were one year olds) is an army field nurse. I thought he was a bit safer now that we were out of Afghanistan (he had three tours there), but he's now in west Africa, helping to fight Ebola.
I should also add all credit to Cameron for committing such a large effort by the UK - it is rather shameful that so few other countries have made similar efforts.
To those who were pointing out last night what a gent Bercow was/is and only doing his job, I thought about this opinion during the day and it occurred to me that those who were really good at being Speaker such as Betty Boothroyd, George Thomas and Bernard Wetherill, None of them would have behaved as Bercow did, words would have been had behind closed doors.
Bercow isn't up to the job, he should either go, or be forced out. All Bercow thinks about IMHO is Bercow. He doesn't know when to keep his trap shut.
And anyone who is in any doubt should read what Dan Hodges says happened. There is no reason not to believe its absolutely true.
The key section of the Hodges piece is this:
But legally, the statutory instrument still had to be passed to bring 11 elements of the 35 new justice measures into line with British legislation. The EAW wasn’t one of those measures, because it is already technically written into English law.
I'm sure it will further the march to withdrawal no end
The issue is that Bercow is meant to be an impartial arbiter of events. It seems clear that Bercow is not given what DH says Bercow did. It matters not what anyone else was or was not doing (as has been suggested to me) Bercow is meant to control the House. He failed miserably because his own ego gets in the way.The sooner he goes the better. ANYONE eligible would be better than Bercow.
You can try and deflect as much as you like but Bercow's character is old news as is his prediliction to mendacious acts against his old leadership when he can get away with them. If the powers that be had wanted they could have been rid of him long ago. IIRC the Tory leadership restrained their backbenchers from challenging Bercow when there was opportunity to do so. Its a bit late to be bleating about him now!
The reality is that Bercow is nothing more than a side show despite his ego and his small man complex. The key issue is whether the EAW was up for a vote yesterday and clearly it was not!
You can try and deflect as much as you like but Bercow's character is old news as is his prediliction to mendacious acts against his old leadership when he can get away with them. If the powers that be had wanted they could have been rid of him long ago. IIRC the Tory leadership restrained their backbenchers from challenging Bercow when there was opportunity to do so. Its a bit late to be bleating about him now!
The reality is that Bercow is nothing more than a side show despite his ego and his small man complex. The key issue is whether the EAW was up for a vote yesterday and clearly it was not!
In a letter to Mrs Cooper, Mrs May wrote: "I shall be making very clear in the House on Monday - and am happy to do so now - that Monday's vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures." "
I can see UKIP potentially winning 8-10 seats in Essex and Kent alone, but outside of that I can only see 2 very strong chances of gains: Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth.
They're 5/2 for Cannock Chase.
That's generous. If the local Conservatives opt to vote tactically, UKIP will win easily. I know that's quite a big 'if', but in this case it's a pretty compelling option.
I live in Cannock. Labour will retake this seat. That is flat, that is final. If UKIP come third, they will have done exceptionally well. There is no danger of local Conservatives voting tactically as they are still deluding themselves they will win. They are talking to themselves and reinforcing themselves in this fantasy as a result. I talk to swing voters and they are switching to Labour.
Longer term, I think Cannock will become a fairly safe Tory seat, a la Tamworth, simply because it's now where people who make money come to in order to escape from Birmingham. But there's a way to go before affluent voters in Heath Hayes, central Cannock and the outskirts of Rugeley commuting to Birmingham outnumber the urban dwellers of Rugeley town centre, Cannock's Pye Green Road and Lichfield Road area and Hednesford (who vote Labour).
The key for the Tories is that they have lost the lower middle-class vote/upper working class vote that backed Aidan Burley last time. But it hasn't gone to UKIP.
IMO Labour are definitely favourites but I don't think they're certain to take it. Ashcroft's poll had them just 2% ahead of UKIP.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Over half the Lincs CC UKIP councillors elected in 1983 including the majority in Boston/Skegness are now in a rival party . Whether the break away part or those remaining are the more BNP lite faction you can squabble amongst yourselves
There were no UKIP councillors elected in 1983.
More to the point the councillors were kicked out or resigned the party due to racist comments they made or supported.
Now as I say I know you are incapable of understanding these basic principles but in that case you really have nothing of value to add to this debate.
Given my much more accurate forecast of the Labour majority in the South Yotks PCC election than yours I think my contribution to this debate is rather more valuable than yours .
Translation = Served their purpose so they can foxtrot Oscar.
Actually that's an embarrassing effort by Burley - the guy's in Sierra Leone in connection with the Ebola epidemic, and she only wants to ask him about the Labour Party? I think the party's very interesting and important, but honestly Ebola is actually more important right now, especially if he can shake up the aid effort.
Nick I would agree entirely
How many times have other politicians from "other" parties ( on the right) been treated this way. Without any comment or perhaps unfair call from someone as honourable as your good self
That would be precisely none....
You might be right, I'm afraid. But I try to give credit across the boundaries sometimes - I've defended Letwin here (in my opinion one of the most idealistic people in the House) and I actually had a quiet pact with Norman Lamb (we encouraged a vote-swapping website - Broxtowe LDs for me, Norfolk Labour for him).
I take your point entirely. I just thought praise from an opponent (and I am surely an opponent of Blair on almost every issue) was worth recording when he does something of real value.
Yes. I must say that if you were standing in a seat where I wasn't, I'd find it hard to vote against you. Why aren't you standing, in fact?
You can try and deflect as much as you like but Bercow's character is old news as is his prediliction to mendacious acts against his old leadership when he can get away with them. If the powers that be had wanted they could have been rid of him long ago. IIRC the Tory leadership restrained their backbenchers from challenging Bercow when there was opportunity to do so. Its a bit late to be bleating about him now!
The reality is that Bercow is nothing more than a side show despite his ego and his small man complex. The key issue is whether the EAW was up for a vote yesterday and clearly it was not!
In a letter to Mrs Cooper, Mrs May wrote: "I shall be making very clear in the House on Monday - and am happy to do so now - that Monday's vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures." "
Indeed and she has told the House numerous things in the past which have turned out to be inaccurate. I believe she has had to formally apologise at least twice for misrepresenting issues. Frankly I wouldn't take May's word for anything given her time at the Home Office has been such a foul up.
I can see UKIP potentially winning 8-10 seats in Essex and Kent alone, but outside of that I can only see 2 very strong chances of gains: Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth.
They're 5/2 for Cannock Chase.
That's generous. If the local Conservatives opt to vote tactically, UKIP will win easily. I know that's quite a big 'if', but in this case it's a pretty compelling option.
The key for the Tories is that they have lost the lower middle-class vote/upper working class vote that backed Aidan Burley last time. But it hasn't gone to UKIP.
IMO Labour are definitely favourites but I don't think they're certain to take it. Ashcroft's poll had them just 2% ahead of UKIP.
I can see UKIP potentially winning 8-10 seats in Essex and Kent alone, but outside of that I can only see 2 very strong chances of gains: Boston & Skegness and Great Yarmouth.
They're 5/2 for Cannock Chase.
That's generous. If the local Conservatives opt to vote tactically, UKIP will win easily. I know that's quite a big 'if', but in this case it's a pretty compelling option.
I live in Cannock. Labour will retake this seat. That is flat, that is final. If UKIP come third, they will have done exceptionally well. There is no danger of local Conservatives voting tactically as they are still deluding themselves they will win. They are talking to themselves and reinforcing themselves in this fantasy as a result. I talk to swing voters and they are swi
IMO Labour are definitely favourites but I don't think they're certain to take it. Ashcroft's poll had them just 2% ahead of UKIP.
I feel sorry for Aiden Burley. By my account an alright guy, but he didn't expect to win that seat and was just too young for it. He still had some maturing left to do.
It's a shame because I think the job cost his fiancé and reputation as well as his political career.
You can try and deflect as much as you like but Bercow's character is old news as is his prediliction to mendacious acts against his old leadership when he can get away with them. If the powers that be had wanted they could have been rid of him long ago. IIRC the Tory leadership restrained their backbenchers from challenging Bercow when there was opportunity to do so. Its a bit late to be bleating about him now!
The reality is that Bercow is nothing more than a side show despite his ego and his small man complex. The key issue is whether the EAW was up for a vote yesterday and clearly it was not!
In a letter to Mrs Cooper, Mrs May wrote: "I shall be making very clear in the House on Monday - and am happy to do so now - that Monday's vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures." "
Indeed and she has told the House numerous things in the past which have turned out to be inaccurate. I believe she has had to formally apologise at least twice for misrepresenting issues. Frankly I wouldn't take May's word for anything given her time at the Home Office has been such a foul up.
So who do you think voted for the package last night, thinking that they weren't voting for the EAW?
You can try and deflect as much as you like but Bercow's character is old news as is his prediliction to mendacious acts against his old leadership when he can get away with them. If the powers that be had wanted they could have been rid of him long ago. IIRC the Tory leadership restrained their backbenchers from challenging Bercow when there was opportunity to do so. Its a bit late to be bleating about him now!
The reality is that Bercow is nothing more than a side show despite his ego and his small man complex. The key issue is whether the EAW was up for a vote yesterday and clearly it was not!
In a letter to Mrs Cooper, Mrs May wrote: "I shall be making very clear in the House on Monday - and am happy to do so now - that Monday's vote is a vote on the entire package of 35 measures." "
Indeed and she has told the House numerous things in the past which have turned out to be inaccurate. I believe she has had to formally apologise at least twice for misrepresenting issues. Frankly I wouldn't take May's word for anything given her time at the Home Office has been such a foul up.
So who do you think voted for the package last night, thinking that they weren't voting for the EAW?
I have no idea what the MPs thought they were voting on after the farce that played out yesterday and clearly neither did the government given the sheer desperation of dragging Cameron and others back to vote when supposedly they had seen off the rebellion weeks before.
IMO Labour are definitely favourites but I don't think they're certain to take it. Ashcroft's poll had them just 2% ahead of UKIP.
Part of the problem may be that a relatively small proportion of the local population has landlines. The Labour bedrock has mostly switched to mobiles - it's cheaper for what they need/use (surprising though that may seem to many people on here).
I'm not denying there has been a switch to UKIP - I'm merely saying that it's not going to deliver them the seat or even a strong second place.
And incidentally, I am most unlikely to be voting Labour and I live in one of the council estate areas I mentioned. I therefore have every opportunity to observe which way the wind is blowing, and it's currently blowing due Redward. The changes to housing benefit were received like the proverbial heap of sick, and immigration is not so much of an issue here as it is in other places. If Labour poll above 25% nationally, they will take this seat.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Over half the Lincs CC UKIP councillors elected in 1983 including the majority in Boston/Skegness are now in a rival party . Whether the break away part or those remaining are the more BNP lite faction you can squabble amongst yourselves
There were no UKIP councillors elected in 1983.
More to the point the councillors were kicked out or resigned the party due to racist comments they made or supported.
Now as I say I know you are incapable of understanding these basic principles but in that case you really have nothing of value to add to this debate.
Given my much more accurate forecast of the Labour majority in the South Yotks PCC election than yours I think my contribution to this debate is rather more valuable than yours .
I am afraid your idiotic and ill informed comments on here say far more about your value than picking a number out of the air in an election that your own party thought was so worthless they didn't even stand a candidate in.
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
Yes. I must say that if you were standing in a seat where I wasn't, I'd find it hard to vote against you. Why aren't you standing, in fact?
LOL. Thanks Nick but as I think I said a few months ago, I couldn't afford the pay cut, couldn't follow party orders and certainly wouldn't survive any press investigations into my past.
Any party with any sense would run a mile from me as a candidate.
Oh come on Isam. If they had been white youths (and that is entirely possible given the state if some of our youth these days) would you really be saying "Good old Yorkshire whites?"
Sometimes it is a good idea to exercise a bit of self restraint in posting.
Boston & Skegness isn't a foregone conclusion. The Tories have already selected a candidate, whereas UKIP haven't.
If they pick Neil Hamilton the Tory leaflets write themselves.
Wouldn't call any 4/7 chance 'a foregone conclusion', Casino. Was just pointing out the odds on shots, that's all.
I have to go out. If Robert Smithson shows up, can you direct him to my kind offer of a 50 pound bet, please.
Thanks.
Calm down. It wasn't directed at you. Although, since you ask, I think you are a bit too bullish on UKIP prospects. We can have that conversation another time.
I'm possibly not around for much longer myself: I have to go and pick up (and then talk and listen to) my wife.
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
There are not two rival UKIP parties in Boston/Skegness. There is one UKIP party and a BNP lite party consisting of former BNP supporters and people kicked out of UKIP for racism.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
Over half the Lincs CC UKIP councillors elected in 1983 including the majority in Boston/Skegness are now in a rival party . Whether the break away part or those remaining are the more BNP lite faction you can squabble amongst yourselves
There were no UKIP councillors elected in 1983.
More to the point the councillors were kicked out or resigned the party due to racist comments they made or supported.
Now as I say I know you are incapable of understanding these basic principles but in that case you really have nothing of value to add to this debate.
Given my much more accurate forecast of the Labour majority in the South Yotks PCC election than yours I think my contribution to this debate is rather more valuable than yours .
I am afraid your idiotic and ill informed comments on here say far more about your value than picking a number out of the air in an election that your own party thought was so worthless they didn't even stand a candidate in.
If you think I pluck numbers out of the air then you are sadly mistaken , I put a lot of research and effort into my forecasts back to the Cheadle by election forecasting contest on here back in 2005 which I managed to win .
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
Trolls reap what they sow.. Why do you think he made so many barbed comments about Essex yesterday?
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
It does come across that you are more offended by someone pointing out that it was some yorkshire asians who attacked a 70 year old man on his way to a remembrance parade, having his medals stolen, and him hospitalised, rather than the actual act of the man been attacked.
I disagree, especially if the turnout for this by-election ends up being a lot lower than the last GE or the one next year. The voters of Rochester know that they are going to have the chance to cast their vote again in the wider GE in a just few months time. If Reckless wins next week, he is still faces a very tough fight to hang onto the seat while the outcome of that GE remains unclear in the polls. The Labour party won back the seats they lost to the SNP and the Libdems in two of the by-elections up here in Scotland when it looked very likely that the Conservatives were on course to win the last GE.
IMO Labour are definitely favourites but I don't think they're certain to take it. Ashcroft's poll had them just 2% ahead of UKIP.
Part of the problem may be that a relatively small proportion of the local population has landlines. The Labour bedrock has mostly switched to mobiles - it's cheaper for what they need/use (surprising though that may seem to many people on here).
I'm not denying there has been a switch to UKIP - I'm merely saying that it's not going to deliver them the seat or even a strong second place.
And incidentally, I am most unlikely to be voting Labour and I live in one of the council estate areas I mentioned. I therefore have every opportunity to observe which way the wind is blowing, and it's currently blowing due Redward. The changes to housing benefit were received like the proverbial heap of sick, and immigration is not so much of an issue here as it is in other places. If Labour poll above 25% nationally, they will take this seat.
A few day ago I was having a look around the new housing development next to Rugeley power station. It's pretty big — there must be more than a thousand new residents there, and the building is still going on. It's exactly the sort of place which could deliver the seat to the Tories or perhaps UKIP in the future IMO.
Speedy, your breathless posting on behalf of UKIP has been so pathetic as to become endearing. Perhaps post a little less, and engage brain a little more?
The you-kippers on here are starting to resemble the YES campaigners, who have now largely vanished. They proclaimed much, wouldn't listen to us seasoned heads and then vanished in a puff of smoke. Here we go again.
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
Trolls reap what they sow.. Why do you think he made so many barbed comments about Essex yesterday?
One piece of advice for you; stick to betting and politics.
INcidentally, and almost completely off-topic, you would be surprised I think at how badly the reorganisation of the NHS has been received round these parts, and not just by its employees. Very strange indeed to my eyes, as prior to the reorganisations Cannock's hospital was run by the notorious Mid Staffordshire gangsters Trust. But the fury whipped up by its abolition/division has been something to behold.
If that's replicated countrywide in areas where there WEREN'T ghastly scandals involving allegations of mass murder, that's a serious weakness for the government. It also offers a genuine opportunity for Labour if they only have the sense to take it.
However, given how brilliantly Miliband has jumped on every pointless bandwagon and jumped off every useful one, I expect him to miss it as usual. I fully expect them to fight the election on the economy, where Balls isn't so much a liability as an object of pity, and education, where Tristram Hunt has in a stroke of sheer genius I would never have believed him capable of has become even more hated among teachers than Michael Gove even before he has taken office. And, therefore, it still seems likely Labour will do badly in the election. Hence my caveat about 25%.
Oh come on Isam. If they had been white youths (and that is entirely possible given the state if some of our youth these days) would you really be saying "Good old Yorkshire whites?"
Sometimes it is a good idea to exercise a bit of self restraint in posting.
If a load of white Yorkshiremen moved en masse to Pakistan and raped 1400 Asian girls then bashed up their war veterans I would be thoroughly ashamed of them and would say just that actually
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
It does come across that you are more offended by someone pointing out that it was some yorkshire asians who attacked a 70 year old man on his way to a remembrance parade, having his medals stolen, and him hospitalised, rather than the actual act of the man been attacked.
Then you obviously haven't understood correctly what I said. Try again.
Oh come on Isam. If they had been white youths (and that is entirely possible given the state if some of our youth these days) would you really be saying "Good old Yorkshire whites?"
Sometimes it is a good idea to exercise a bit of self restraint in posting.
If a load of white Yorkshiremen moved en masse to Pakistan and raped 1400 Asian girls then bashed up their war veterans I would be thoroughly ashamed of them and would say just that actually
Conflation of arguments Isam. You wouldn't let anyone else get away with that and you should not either.
Your comment on the attack on the veteran was pointless trolling against someone who has been quite forthright and open in his condemnation of the Rotherham abuse and its racial connections.
A few day ago I was having a look around the new housing development next to Rugeley power station. It's pretty big — there must be more than a thousand new residents there, and the building is still going on. It's exactly the sort of place which could deliver the seat to the Tories or perhaps UKIP in the future IMO.
I agree, and said as much in my earlier post. You can see the same in Heath Hayes, and on the back roads around Pye Green as well as out towards the M6 Toll in Cannock itself. It will however take ten years for such places to cancel out the solid Labour vote in my locality, which is much bigger and at the same time much better hidden. The transformation will certainly not happen before next May.
Remember - this seat was a surprise win for the Conservatives last time, with a swing far above the average due to local personalities. That's now gone from the equation. Along with a heavy swing against the Tories due to local impacts of national policies, this seat will turn red.
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
It does come across that you are more offended by someone pointing out that it was some yorkshire asians who attacked a 70 year old man on his way to a remembrance parade, having his medals stolen, and him hospitalised, rather than the actual act of the man been attacked.
Then you obviously haven't understood correctly what I said. Try again.
You are the one who misunderstands I fear.
If a gang of white youths attack an elderly asian or black it is automatically assumed to be a racist crime and is fact deemed so under law by the declaration of the victim that it was racially motivated. Your party and labour conspired to pass this drivel of legislation. You therefore have no right to complain when others use this theory the other way around and insinuate that the crime was down to racial motivation.
Frankly I have no idea if this was or wasn't what I do know however that around my way white muggers ( and yes I know a couple) avoid like the plague anyone asian or black due to the fact that on those rare occurrences that the police actually manage to catch a criminal they will have their sentence extended not because it was necessarily racially motivated but purely because it will be assumed to be so. In programming we have a saying Garbage in Garbage out. This sort of thinking is garbage and it was supported by your weasel idol Cameron. Reap what you sow
Speedy, your breathless posting on behalf of UKIP has been so pathetic as to become endearing. Perhaps post a little less, and engage brain a little more?
The you-kippers on here are starting to resemble the YES campaigners, who have now largely vanished. They proclaimed much, wouldn't listen to us seasoned heads and then vanished in a puff of smoke. Here we go again.
Here we go again - what were you seasoning your head with throughout 2009, which made you fail to notice the Totnes open primary, leading you to proclaim that R&S was a first in UK politics? - this from someone so deeply involved in tory politics that they were at constituency strategy meetings in 1979?
You are a fantasist, and your fantasies are more dreary than everybody else's reality. You know nothing about politics. At all.
A few day ago I was having a look around the new housing development next to Rugeley power station. It's pretty big — there must be more than a thousand new residents there, and the building is still going on. It's exactly the sort of place which could deliver the seat to the Tories or perhaps UKIP in the future IMO.
I agree, and said as much in my earlier post. You can see the same in Heath Hayes, and on the back roads around Pye Green as well as out towards the M6 Toll in Cannock itself. It will however take ten years for such places to cancel out the solid Labour vote in my locality, which is much bigger and at the same time much better hidden. The transformation will certainly not happen before next May.
Remember - this seat was a surprise win for the Conservatives last time, with a swing far above the average due to local personalities. That's now gone from the equation. Along with a heavy swing against the Tories due to local impacts of national policies, this seat will turn red.
The Tories achieved a fantastic swing in Cannock Chase in GE2010. I'm still not sure how, although I understand Aiden ran a very good campaign.
If that had been replicated nationwide, the Tories would have won a landslide.
Further to what I said yesterday about whether maybe UKIP want to appear a bit racist or should they tone it down, don't you think that "good old Yorkshire Asians" might be seen as an attack on all Yorkshire Asians, and one prominent poster on this blog in particular? Don't you think you could have phrased it more carefully, to avoid catching people in your offensive crossfire?
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
It does come across that you are more offended by someone pointing out that it was some yorkshire asians who attacked a 70 year old man on his way to a remembrance parade, having his medals stolen, and him hospitalised, rather than the actual act of the man been attacked.
Then you obviously haven't understood correctly what I said. Try again.
You are the one who misunderstands I fear.
If a gang of white youths attack an elderly asian or black it is automatically assumed to be a racist crime and is fact deemed so under law by the declaration of the victim that it was racially motivated. Your party and labour conspired to pass this drivel of legislation. You therefore have no right to complain when others use this theory the other way around and insinuate that the crime was down to racial motivation.
Frankly I have no idea if this was or wasn't what I do know however that around my way white muggers ( and yes I know a couple) avoid like the plague anyone asian or black due to the fact that on those rare occurrences that the police actually manage to catch a criminal they will have their sentence extended not because it was necessarily racially motivated but purely because it will be assumed to be so. In programming we have a saying Garbage in Garbage out. This sort of thinking is garbage and it was supported by your weasel idol Cameron. Reap what you sow
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
You are correct there, Peter. People just can't believe their own eyes or senses when it comes to UKIP: the facts must, just must, be wrong. It isn't happening has been the mantra of the Lab/Lib/Con supporters all year.
We shall see what happens in the General Election. It is just stating a plain fact to point out that UKIP have caused two By-Election where they had sitting MPs due to defections. They didn't win Eastleigh or Wythenshawe. They are doing well at the moment, but don't overstate it.
No actually I haven't you were insinuating that ISam was a racist because he posted about asian men attacking a white pensioner and like all the metrosexual liberal luvvies you think thats abhorrent. Only white britons can be racist to you.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
Speedy, your breathless posting on behalf of UKIP has been so pathetic as to become endearing. Perhaps post a little less, and engage brain a little more?
The you-kippers on here are starting to resemble the YES campaigners, who have now largely vanished. They proclaimed much, wouldn't listen to us seasoned heads and then vanished in a puff of smoke. Here we go again.
Ah the humble Audrey raises her head.
As you are so vastly experienced in the election business and us Kippers are so clueless would you like to make some easy money from a thick Kipper.
Would you back your judgement with money, I will wager that UKIP get 5 or more seats at the GE, say £100 at evens? Or to make it interesting we could have our own spread bet but without the actual spread getting in the way.
How about you give me £10 for every UKIP seat over five and I give you £20 for seat under five, for example if they get three seats I give you £40.
No actually I haven't you were insinuating that ISam was a racist because he posted about asian men attacking a white pensioner and like all the metrosexual liberal luvvies you think thats abhorrent. Only white britons can be racist to you.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
UKIP are odds on in Thurrock, South Thanet and Boston, all seats where 'defection' doesn't come into it.
Are you suggesting the odds are wrong?
My guess is after Rochester, they will go odds on in a number of other seats too. UKIP have been the value bet all year but I can't see that lasting very much longer.
Which of the 2 rival UKIP parties do you think will win Boston/Skegness at a GE . The answer is neither of them .
Parties formed by UKIP splitters, malcontents or those ejected from the party have had a consistent record of failure stretching all the way back to Kilroy-Silk and Veritas, to the more recent An Independence From Europe. Doubtless there have been a number of others that have enjoyed such spectacular success that I haven't yet heard of them.
Frankly I'd be surprised if this local band of UKIP renegades managed to save their deposit in any seat they decide to stand in. That might be enough to make a difference in a close contest I suppose.
No actually I haven't you were insinuating that ISam was a racist because he posted about asian men attacking a white pensioner and like all the metrosexual liberal luvvies you think thats abhorrent. Only white britons can be racist to you.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
And that was from reading your first line..
The rest of it astounds me, and amuses somewhat.
I'm a metrosexual liberal luvvie, and me and my ilk started this?
No actually I haven't you were insinuating that ISam was a racist because he posted about asian men attacking a white pensioner and like all the metrosexual liberal luvvies you think thats abhorrent. Only white britons can be racist to you.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
If you didn't believe him a racist you would not of objected to his statement. Your denial is implausible. You would not turn a hair if he had posted "good old yorkshire white youth" with a link to them attacking an asian war hero of whom there are many. You know it, I know it and most of those reading PB know it ( with the exception of those tory lickspittles)
Oh come on Isam. If they had been white youths (and that is entirely possible given the state if some of our youth these days) would you really be saying "Good old Yorkshire whites?"
Sometimes it is a good idea to exercise a bit of self restraint in posting.
If a load of white Yorkshiremen moved en masse to Pakistan and raped 1400 Asian girls then bashed up their war veterans I would be thoroughly ashamed of them and would say just that actually
Conflation of arguments Isam. You wouldn't let anyone else get away with that and you should not either.
Your comment on the attack on the veteran was pointless trolling against someone who has been quite forthright and open in his condemnation of the Rotherham abuse and its racial connections.
Frankly it demeans your argument.
Hmm. The last I saw the poster who "has been quite forthright and open in his condemnation of the Rotherham abuse" was cracking jokes about rape and Rotherham. Classy.
No actually I haven't you were insinuating that ISam was a racist because he posted about asian men attacking a white pensioner and like all the metrosexual liberal luvvies you think thats abhorrent. Only white britons can be racist to you.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
And that was from reading your first line..
The rest of it astounds me, and amuses somewhat.
I'm a metrosexual liberal luvvie, and me and my ilk started this?
No actually I haven't you were insinuating that ISam was a racist because he posted about asian men attacking a white pensioner and like all the metrosexual liberal luvvies you think thats abhorrent. Only white britons can be racist to you.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
If you didn't believe him a racist you would not of objected to his statement. Your denial is implausible. You would not turn a hair if he had posted "good old yorkshire white youth" with a link to them attacking an asian war hero of whom there are many. You know it, I know it and most of those reading PB know it ( with the exception of those tory lickspittles)
Engage brain before fingers. You know nothing about me and you clearly have not read or you've not understood what I said to isam.
I've made comments on here about the Rotherham abuse that have led to other posters calling me a racist and request that I be moderated.
I've questioned, very recently, why UKIP aren't worried about saying or doing things that could be interpreted as racist. I've said that I don't believe they are racist, but suggested they may not be afraid of attracting what might be quite a large racist section of the white working class.
Today I questioned isam on the same thing, but from a slightly different angle. I definitely don't think he's racist, but making a sweeping statement like "good old Yorkshire Asians" (and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the "good" bit literally) might be painted as racist by others. I suggested he may try to be a bit more careful so as to avoid painting the vast majority of Yorkshire's roughly half million Asians with his careless brushstroke.
Oh come on Isam. If they had been white youths (and that is entirely possible given the state if some of our youth these days) would you really be saying "Good old Yorkshire whites?"
Sometimes it is a good idea to exercise a bit of self restraint in posting.
If a load of white Yorkshiremen moved en masse to Pakistan and raped 1400 Asian girls then bashed up their war veterans I would be thoroughly ashamed of them and would say just that actually
Conflation of arguments Isam. You wouldn't let anyone else get away with that and you should not either.
Your comment on the attack on the veteran was pointless trolling against someone who has been quite forthright and open in his condemnation of the Rotherham abuse and its racial connections.
Frankly it demeans your argument.
It was retaliation for trolling of me that's all... If people dish it out they can expect it back, we are all big boys
Aside from the issue of the racism or otherwise of any of the posters here, there is something very strange going on with this story regarding the army veteran in Keighley. It was mentioned on Radio 5 at 6 o'clock, though no mention was made of the attackers' ethnicity - and it wasn't mentioned at all on the latest bulletin. I've just looked on the BBC website, and no mention of it there (and this despite some astonishingly dull stories on the West Yorkshire page): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/england/leeds_and_west_yorkshire/ Reported in the Telegraph this morning, though you have to deliberately search to find it. I'm surprised this isn't considered more of a story than it is. The Keighley news reports an arrest, though because the child is 15 he hasn't been named. http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/11594471.UPDATE__Keighley_teenager_arrested_following_alleged_attack_on_army_veteran_in_Lund_Park/?ref=rss
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
If you didn't believe him a racist you would not of objected to his statement. Your denial is implausible. You would not turn a hair if he had posted "good old yorkshire white youth" with a link to them attacking an asian war hero of whom there are many. You know it, I know it and most of those reading PB know it ( with the exception of those tory lickspittles)
Engage brain before fingers. You know nothing about me and you clearly have not read or you've not understood what I said to isam.
I've made comments on here about the Rotherham abuse that have led to other posters calling me a racist and request that I be moderated.
I've questioned, very recently, why UKIP aren't worried about saying or doing things that could be interpreted as racist. I've said that I don't believe thy are racist, but suggested they may not be afraid of attracting what might be quite a large racist section of the white working class.
Today I questioned isam on the same thing, but from a slightly different angle. I definitely don't think he's racist, but making a sweeping statement like "good old Yorkshire Asians" (and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the "good" bit literally) might be painted as racist by others. I suggested he may try to be a bit more careful so as to avoid painting the vast majority of Yorkshire's roughly half million Asians with his careless brushstroke.
Is that too complicated for you?
And your questioning his post and saying it implies "it makes him look racist" implies that you think the comment has racist overtones and that people shouldn't say it. It is not your place to question is my point. If people like you, even if we accept you mean well, jump on every comment and say "you shouldn't say that people might think you racist" then all it does is shut down free speech. The racists, which by the way if you are in any doubt I abhor, will soon reveal themselves if we let them rant. Enough rope to hang yourself etc. It is not your place to police the comments of others.
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
If you didn't believe him a racist you would not of objected to his statement. Your denial is implausible. You would not turn a hair if he had posted "good old yorkshire white youth" with a link to them attacking an asian war hero of whom there are many. You know it, I know it and most of those reading PB know it ( with the exception of those tory lickspittles)
Engage brain before fingers. You know nothing about me and you clearly have not read or you've not understood what I said to isam.
I've made comments on here about the Rotherham abuse that have led to other posters calling me a racist and request that I be moderated.
I've questioned, very recently, why UKIP aren't worried about saying or doing things that could be interpreted as racist. I've said that I don't believe thy are racist, but suggested they may not be afraid of attracting what might be quite a large racist section of the white working class.
Today I questioned isam on the same thing, but from a slightly different angle. I definitely don't think he's racist, but making a sweeping statement like "good old Yorkshire Asians" (and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the "good" bit literally) might be painted as racist by others. I suggested he may try to be a bit more careful so as to avoid painting the vast majority of Yorkshire's roughly half million Asians with his careless brushstroke.
Is that too complicated for you?
And your questioning his post and saying it implies "it makes him look racist" implies that you think the comment has racist overtones and that people shouldn't say it. It is not your place to question is my point. If people like you, even if we accept you mean well, jump on every comment and say "you shouldn't say that people might think you racist" then all it does is shut down free speech. The racists, which by the way if you are in any doubt I abhor, will soon reveal themselves if we let them rant. Enough rope to hang yourself etc. It is not your place to police the comments of others.
First of all, is Richard Tyndall one of my "ilk" given that he also criticised isam's post?
Second, why should half a million Yorkshire Asians be criticised for attacking a war veteran?
Don't be daft. I said "I don't believe you're racist"
Try again
If you didn't believe him a racist you would not of objected to his statement. Your denial is implausible. You would not turn a hair if he had posted "good old yorkshire white youth" with a link to them attacking an asian war hero of whom there are many. You know it, I know it and most of those reading PB know it ( with the exception of those tory lickspittles)
Today I questioned isam on the same thing, but from a slightly different angle. I definitely don't think he's racist, but making a sweeping statement like "good old Yorkshire Asians" (and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the "good" bit literally) might be painted as racist by others. I suggested he may try to be a bit more careful so as to avoid painting the vast majority of Yorkshire's roughly half million Asians with his careless brushstroke.
Is that too complicated for you?
And your questioning his post and saying it implies "it makes him look racist" implies that you think the comment has racist overtones and that people shouldn't say it. It is not your place to question is my point. If people like you, even if we accept you mean well, jump on every comment and say "you shouldn't say that people might think you racist" then all it does is shut down free speech. The racists, which by the way if you are in any doubt I abhor, will soon reveal themselves if we let them rant. Enough rope to hang yourself etc. It is not your place to police the comments of others.
First of all, is Richard Tyndall one of my "ilk" given that he also criticised isam's post?
Second, why should half a million Yorkshire Asians be criticised for attacking a war veteran?
If a load of white CofE blokes from Essex were found to have been systematically sexually abusing black women, and then I, as a white CofE bloke from Essex made a crude joke about sexually abusing a black woman, I think I would rightly get slaughtered on here. Fact is that I wouldn't dream if doing so whatever the circumstances
Well a similar thing has happened on this site, and no one criticised the culprit, who refuses to apologise and trolls me for pulling him up on it
First of all, is Richard Tyndall one of my "ilk" given that he also criticised isam's post?
Second, why should half a million Yorkshire Asians be criticised for attacking a war veteran?
Why does what Richard Tyndall say matter in this? I think mr Tyndall for who I have a great deal of respect happens to be wrong on this count but thats a disagreement between me and him.
As to why should half a million yorkshire asians be criticised, turning that on its head why should several million britons be labelled as xenophobes and racists because they decide to vote ukip. That happens every day here but I do not here you expounding about it.
For the record I happen to believe what ISam posted did unfairly label them however I believe it is both his right to say it and to expect to be challenged on it on the substance of it. What you did however was not challenging on the substance but the usual guardianesque drivel of implying it was "the wrong thing to say". That is exactly the sort of thinking that led directly to Rotheram.
Comments
Therefore, even if you think the most likely outcome (50% on the probability distribution) is 6 seats, and the spread is 8-10, you should probably buy, because the odds you are being paid on the 5% of outcomes above 20 or 30 seats are so implicitly large.
Eta - if the surge in membership continues then standing in even more seats than the target may well be possible
£20?
This does just not feel UKIP territory . DYOR
That's generous. If the local Conservatives opt to vote tactically, UKIP will win easily. I know that's quite a big 'if', but in this case it's a pretty compelling option.
Plus, I also think there's a chance that the increased media coverage during the election campaign for the mainstream parties could inadvertently drive up support for UKIP -- daily reminders to people of how much they hate the main politicians, being driven up the wall by their refusal to answer questions or speak in normal English, might make them even more determined to give the whole lot a slap.
But legally, the statutory instrument still had to be passed to bring 11 elements of the 35 new justice measures into line with British legislation. The EAW wasn’t one of those measures, because it is already technically written into English law.
It seems clear to me that whatever way Bercow may have spun yesterday's proceedings as, the EAW was not up for a vote yesterday. I imagine that if Parliament had voted against the 11 measures then the Home Office would still have been able to push the EAW through because the EAW has already technically been written into English law as Hodges pieces acknowledges.
Hodges can make as much smoke and mirrors as he likes and write as many character assassinations of Bercow as floats his boat but it doesn't change the content of that paragraph. Cameron said that the EAW would be voted on and clearly if that paragraph is to be believed it was never in question yesterday.
Incidentally did you know that we can still opt in to the hundred or so Justice measures that May has declined at present but we can never opt out of the EAW once adopted. Yet again like free movement of Labour, the ECJ and the ECHR the government has now provided yet another stick with which to beat our membership of the EU. In fact when British citizens start being judged by the archaic standards of some European countries, I'm sure it will further the march to withdrawal no end
But good on him for actually going to Sierra Leone to see the Ebola crisis on the front line. No ifs, no buts, this was a great thing he has done. Hopefully this will continue to highlight the tragedy of what is happening in West Africa.
I know that Eurofanatics like yourself cannot see the difference but then you are stupid enough to think the EU is a good thing so I think we can really ignore your opinion on this.
You I think are an offshore worker.
I went to Congo 30 years ago. Went back there recently and nothing has changed , zero. I Just want to make the point and no doubt you have seem similar elsewhere or even here. The local governmental systems have to change.
Until then look for Band AId 2050
Longer term, I think Cannock will become a fairly safe Tory seat, a la Tamworth, simply because it's now where people who make money come to in order to escape from Birmingham. But there's a way to go before affluent voters in Heath Hayes, central Cannock and the outskirts of Rugeley commuting to Birmingham outnumber the urban dwellers of Rugeley town centre, Cannock's Pye Green Road and Lichfield Road area and Hednesford (who vote Labour).
The key for the Tories is that they have lost the lower middle-class vote/upper working class vote that backed Aidan Burley last time. But it hasn't gone to UKIP.
I'd have thought Diane James will go to Pompey South
South Basildon & East Thurrock hustings are on Dec 9th..
It matters not what anyone else was or was not doing (as has been suggested to me) Bercow is meant to control the House. He failed miserably because his own ego gets in the way.The sooner he goes the better. ANYONE eligible would be better than Bercow.
We on for fifty nicker? :-)
But if you want my guess as to how it'll be priced by them after, given how I think the by-election will go, I'd say -
UKIP 4/9
Con 15/8
Lab 16/1
Anyone else 100/1
Noted with thanks, YD.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/politics/elections/eastleigh_2013/news/10248557.Diane_James___UKIP/
More to the point the councillors were kicked out or resigned the party due to racist comments they made or supported.
Now as I say I know you are incapable of understanding these basic principles but in that case you really have nothing of value to add to this debate.
I've recently discovered that this crisis is a bit closer to home for me than I'd thought. My oldest friend (known him since we were one year olds) is an army field nurse. I thought he was a bit safer now that we were out of Afghanistan (he had three tours there), but he's now in west Africa, helping to fight Ebola.
There was a bill and a vote on it but for 11 statutory instruments, none of which were about the EAW.
The reality is that Bercow is nothing more than a side show despite his ego and his small man complex. The key issue is whether the EAW was up for a vote yesterday and clearly it was not!
You said that yesterday ..... doesn't make it any more true
We are about to make the first landing ever on a comet
On topic...
What effect will this landing on a comet have on the UKIP majority in the forthcoming by election?
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29979623
Explain this from two days ago then
If they pick Neil Hamilton the Tory leaflets write themselves.
I have to admit I find the accent of the Labour candidate in Rochester quite attractive. Not sure why.
Speaking of crossing boundaries... Yes. I must say that if you were standing in a seat where I wasn't, I'd find it hard to vote against you. Why aren't you standing, in fact?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/11/Army-Veteran-Mugged-Asian-Youths
It's a shame because I think the job cost his fiancé and reputation as well as his political career.
I have to go out. If Robert Smithson shows up, can you direct him to my kind offer of a 50 pound bet, please.
Thanks.
I'm not denying there has been a switch to UKIP - I'm merely saying that it's not going to deliver them the seat or even a strong second place.
And incidentally, I am most unlikely to be voting Labour and I live in one of the council estate areas I mentioned. I therefore have every opportunity to observe which way the wind is blowing, and it's currently blowing due Redward. The changes to housing benefit were received like the proverbial heap of sick, and immigration is not so much of an issue here as it is in other places. If Labour poll above 25% nationally, they will take this seat.
I don't believe you're racist, but if other people were to suspect you might be would this help?
Any party with any sense would run a mile from me as a candidate.
I almost feel sorry for him, but it's not very prime ministerial
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11224016/David-Cameron-tells-Labour-LibDems-and-Green-supporters-in-Rochester-and-Strood-Vote-Tory-and-stop-Ukip.html
Sometimes it is a good idea to exercise a bit of self restraint in posting.
I'm possibly not around for much longer myself: I have to go and pick up (and then talk and listen to) my wife.
http://www.persimmonhomes.com/the-pippins-2008
The you-kippers on here are starting to resemble the YES campaigners, who have now largely vanished. They proclaimed much, wouldn't listen to us seasoned heads and then vanished in a puff of smoke. Here we go again.
In about 40 years from now, when you have a combination of greater experience and humility you'll make a decent political poster.
gangstersTrust. But the fury whipped up by its abolition/division has been something to behold.If that's replicated countrywide in areas where there WEREN'T ghastly scandals involving allegations of mass murder, that's a serious weakness for the government. It also offers a genuine opportunity for Labour if they only have the sense to take it.
However, given how brilliantly Miliband has jumped on every pointless bandwagon and jumped off every useful one, I expect him to miss it as usual. I fully expect them to fight the election on the economy, where Balls isn't so much a liability as an object of pity, and education, where Tristram Hunt has in a stroke of sheer genius I would never have believed him capable of has become even more hated among teachers than Michael Gove even before he has taken office. And, therefore, it still seems likely Labour will do badly in the election. Hence my caveat about 25%.
Your comment on the attack on the veteran was pointless trolling against someone who has been quite forthright and open in his condemnation of the Rotherham abuse and its racial connections.
Frankly it demeans your argument.
Hope you didn't lose too much on your Rochester bets
Remember - this seat was a surprise win for the Conservatives last time, with a swing far above the average due to local personalities. That's now gone from the equation. Along with a heavy swing against the Tories due to local impacts of national policies, this seat will turn red.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/taxi-driver-abducted-drunk-schoolteacher-4607866
If a gang of white youths attack an elderly asian or black it is automatically assumed to be a racist crime and is fact deemed so under law by the declaration of the victim that it was racially motivated. Your party and labour conspired to pass this drivel of legislation. You therefore have no right to complain when others use this theory the other way around and insinuate that the crime was down to racial motivation.
Frankly I have no idea if this was or wasn't what I do know however that around my way white muggers ( and yes I know a couple) avoid like the plague anyone asian or black due to the fact that on those rare occurrences that the police actually manage to catch a criminal they will have their sentence extended not because it was necessarily racially motivated but purely because it will be assumed to be so. In programming we have a saying Garbage in Garbage out. This sort of thinking is garbage and it was supported by your weasel idol Cameron. Reap what you sow
You are a fantasist, and your fantasies are more dreary than everybody else's reality. You know nothing about politics. At all.
If that had been replicated nationwide, the Tories would have won a landslide.
They are doing well at the moment, but don't overstate it.
You wanted this thinking now deal with it.
Just to give you a clue before you come out with it by the way
No I am not a ukip supported
I am classed as an ethnic minority
The moment we start looking at crime always through a lens of ethnicity is the moment we take the first step down that long road that leads to ethnic cleansing. It was you and your ilk that started this no one else to blame
As you are so vastly experienced in the election business and us Kippers are so clueless would you like to make some easy money from a thick Kipper.
Would you back your judgement with money, I will wager that UKIP get 5 or more seats at the GE, say £100 at evens? Or to make it interesting we could have our own spread bet but without the actual spread getting in the way.
How about you give me £10 for every UKIP seat over five and I give you £20 for seat under five, for example if they get three seats I give you £40.
Deal?
Try again
Frankly I'd be surprised if this local band of UKIP renegades managed to save their deposit in any seat they decide to stand in. That might be enough to make a difference in a close contest I suppose.
The rest of it astounds me, and amuses somewhat.
I'm a metrosexual liberal luvvie, and me and my ilk started this?
You really do know nothing about me at all.
Gov seats only
34/57 = 60%
All seats changing
36/67 = 54%
I've made comments on here about the Rotherham abuse that have led to other posters calling me a racist and request that I be moderated.
I've questioned, very recently, why UKIP aren't worried about saying or doing things that could be interpreted as racist. I've said that I don't believe they are racist, but suggested they may not be afraid of attracting what might be quite a large racist section of the white working class.
Today I questioned isam on the same thing, but from a slightly different angle. I definitely don't think he's racist, but making a sweeping statement like "good old Yorkshire Asians" (and I'm pretty sure he didn't mean the "good" bit literally) might be painted as racist by others. I suggested he may try to be a bit more careful so as to avoid painting the vast majority of Yorkshire's roughly half million Asians with his careless brushstroke.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Keighley news reports an arrest, though because the child is 15 he hasn't been named.
http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/11594471.UPDATE__Keighley_teenager_arrested_following_alleged_attack_on_army_veteran_in_Lund_Park/?ref=rss
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/rochester-strood/
Entries close 7pm next Wednesday.
Thanks,
DC
As to why should half a million yorkshire asians be criticised, turning that on its head why should several million britons be labelled as xenophobes and racists because they decide to vote ukip. That happens every day here but I do not here you expounding about it.
For the record I happen to believe what ISam posted did unfairly label them however I believe it is both his right to say it and to expect to be challenged on it on the substance of it. What you did however was not challenging on the substance but the usual guardianesque drivel of implying it was "the wrong thing to say". That is exactly the sort of thinking that led directly to Rotheram.
I really think they should leave it there longer, perhaps until August 2015.
It would look wonderful with some snow or spring blossom.