Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there were a Newark by-election…

SystemSystem Posts: 12,212
edited May 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If there were a Newark by-election…

My thoughts on the immediate consequences for this are at first, there’s probably one less letter demanding a leadership vote in the Tory party now which will bring a smile to David Cameron’s face, but we could have a by-election, and would that bring a smile to Cameron’s face?

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    first
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956
    Thank you Patrick Mercer, The Telegraph et al for not running this story yesterday.

    My prayers were answered.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    If
    Con = 40% of 2010 vote
    Lab = 60% of 2010
    LD = 40% of 2010
    UKIP = 22% of Con 2010, 18% of LD 2010, 12% Lab 2010, and retain their own 2010

    UKIP 11240
    Con 11036
    Lab 6862
    LD 4098

    46% turnout
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    From Patrick Mercer's statement:

    "Panorama are planning to broadcast a programme alleging that I have broken Parliamentary rules.

    "I am taking legal advice about these allegations - and I have referred myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    "In the meantime, to save my party embarrassment, I have resigned the Conservative whip and have so informed Sir George Young. I have also decided not to stand at the next general election."


    That doesn't sound as though he's going to resign his seat. Of course events may overtake him, but that's rather unlikely - it takes a lot* to shove out an MP who doesn't want to go.

    * Note to tim: Yes, I know. Laws, parliamentary recall, blah blah
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I notice that the DT isn't allowing comments on the Mercer story - and he's taking legal advice re 'several allegations'.

    With that in mind - do we need to watch P&Qs here very carefully?
  • The Reverend Major ...

    its a perfect touch for a UKIP candidate
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,956

    The Reverend Major ...

    its a perfect touch for a UKIP candidate

    I'm sure Reverend Major Tom is a David Bowie song.

  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    isam said:

    If
    Con = 40% of 2010 vote
    Lab = 60% of 2010
    LD = 40% of 2010
    UKIP = 22% of Con 2010, 18% of LD 2010, 12% Lab 2010, and retain their own 2010

    UKIP 11240
    Con 11036
    Lab 6862
    LD 4098

    46% turnout

    Are you modelling substantial turnout drop here (sorry, don't have the 2010 turnout figure handy) - so 38% Con, 28% Lab, 42% LD don't vote? That seems high. Also, however badly Ed is seen to be doing - and Dan Hodges may be able to provide you with some information on that - it doesn't seem very likely that he will drop 40% on "the worst PM ever" 2010 vote share.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    The Reverend Major ...

    its a perfect touch for a UKIP candidate

    There must be someone on here who has the power to grant him an honorary doctorate to improve things further.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Mercer leading WATO - but no talk of bye-election.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    90s style politicians like to scrutinise and analyse every micro detail... they produced statistics and findings that they thought gave them an edge... they are pedantic foxes

    The public don't feel what the stats "show"... they are unconvinced hedgehogs

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323372504578464704081223308.html

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Polruan said:

    isam said:

    If
    Con = 40% of 2010 vote
    Lab = 60% of 2010
    LD = 40% of 2010
    UKIP = 22% of Con 2010, 18% of LD 2010, 12% Lab 2010, and retain their own 2010

    UKIP 11240
    Con 11036
    Lab 6862
    LD 4098

    46% turnout

    Are you modelling substantial turnout drop here (sorry, don't have the 2010 turnout figure handy) - so 38% Con, 28% Lab, 42% LD don't vote? That seems high. Also, however badly Ed is seen to be doing - and Dan Hodges may be able to provide you with some information on that - it doesn't seem very likely that he will drop 40% on "the worst PM ever" 2010 vote share.
    Just playing around really...

    Post 2010 By Elections

    Eastleigh turnout was 78% of 2010
    Rotherham 57%
    Corby 66%
    OE&S 78%
    Middlesbro 50%


    so 46% turnout is 64% of Newark 2010 (71%)

    Ive got the stats for each party I will have a look.. Im trying to trade the cricket at the same time!

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,779
    There's a lot more to Newark constituency than the two Newark town electoral divisions.

    There's also Tuxford, Bingham, Farndon, Farnsfield, Southwell and Radcliffe divisions.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2013
    Reading the entirety of that Parris column, it really is a lousy one. His argument is that UKIP are extremists because, even though they don't have policies that are any more extremist than any of the other three main parties, but because they see the interconnections between various policies rather than treat them individually.

    It's a ridiculous argument. Even if you think the policies in question aren't related, it's not "extremist" to see connections. Extremist is believing non-white people should be kicked out the country or that adulterers should be stoned.

    If you read the piece you can actually see the thinking of people like Parris happening. He starts out with his conclusion - UKIP are extremists - and then looks around trying to scrape together a justification for that conclusion. It shows the conclusion is instinctual rather than one made on level-headed reasoning and analysis.

    Where does that instinct come from? Well, perhaps it's just a cultural aversion to the manner and style of normal people out in the country. Whether it's middle-aged rural people that wear blazers or the manual workers that go to working men's clubs, people like Parris' natural reaction is to roll their eyes at them.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Socrates said:

    Reading the entirety of that Parris column, it really is a lousy one. His argument is that UKIP are extremists because, even though they don't have policies that are any more extremist than any of the other three main parties, but because they see the interconnections between various policies rather than treat them individually.

    It's a ridiculous argument. Even if you think the policies in question aren't related, it's not "extremist" to see connections. Extremist is believing non-white people should be kicked out the country or that adulterers should be stoned.

    Whilst I generally like Mr Parris - he's been writing the same thing for 10yrs or more - he just doesn't seem to get that the world has changed on this issue.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    I really don't think there is a cat in hells chance of UKIP taking Newark. Their performance in Nottinghamshire really wasn't good in the locals. They might be next door to Lincolnshire but they are not near any of the UKIP wins which were concentrated on the East coast and in the south of the county.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,372
    edited May 2013
    I don't think UKIP would take this seat, but they would leap up to second place on a big swing from Con, Lab and Lib-Dem.

    Would be a decent seat for Boris, should he fancy an early return to Westminster....
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Plato

    The europhiles need to realise the only way they are going to have a chance is if they start debating pros and cons rather than just going "those people on the other side wear tweed jackets, they're bloody horrible". A couple of them have started doing it recently, but they're so new at it they're arguments are very weak and can easily be countered.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Paranoia is the common ukip frame of mind, accepting no debate on any of their concerns and suffering from impotent rage.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    There's a lot more to Newark constituency than the two Newark town electoral divisions.

    There's also Tuxford, Bingham, Farndon, Farnsfield, Southwell and Radcliffe divisions.

    None of which UKIP came close to taking. All were safe Tory wins and UKIP didn't even come second in a single one of those divisions.

    I would love to see UKIP win Newark if it ever came to a By-election but I just don't think it is in any way a likely prospect.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    edited May 2013
    @Carlotta

    'The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."

    He's expressed it perfectly and got it dead right-particularly the first few lines. How unusual for Matthew Parris.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,001
    Are England not going to be 70 or 80 runs short here? They will need to bowl NZ out to win.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    'The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."

    He's expressed it perfectly and got it dead right. How unusual for Matthew Parris

    I suppose the paranoia comes from the same source as the prurience of those expressing concern about Jimmy Saville's actions, eh, Roger?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    'The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."

    He's expressed it perfectly and got it dead right. How unusual for Matthew Parris

    Of course he hasn't. Since you are in favour of most of the things he is claiming are targets for UKIP it is hardly surprising you are blind when it comes to these issues.

    More to the point, he claims that these things need to be tackled on an ad-hoc basis. An argument which entirely fails to recognise that no one has and no one will tackle them on any basis because they are part of a collective mindset by politicians who think that they are either a good thing or so unimportant as to be not worth considering. Parris himself like you is a perfect example of that mindset.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited May 2013
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
    We designed the ECHR and signed up to it before there was a Common Market, before we joined it and before there was an EU - why would we want to leave it?

    Are you opposed to the "free movement of labour"? If so, where do you plan to house all the expat Brits repatriated to the UK when we withdraw?


  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
    We designed the ECHR and signed up to it before there was a Common Market, before we joined it and before there was an EU - why would we want to leave it?

    Are you opposed to the "free movement of labour"? If so, where do you plan to house all the expat Brits repatriated to the UK when we withdraw?


    You're changing the subject. Your argument was that the things were unrelated, and now you have been shown they are clearly related, you want to dig into the right and wrongs of the topic.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Have any other MPs been suggested as targets for the lobbying sting yet? I gather there are several who were filmed re the DT/Panorama investigation.

    I assume we'll hear more details in the Sundays if there are whether or not they did anything questionable.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    edited May 2013
    NB. Poor old Patrick Mercer. He always seemed quite reasonable.

    I wonder whether the Tories will cease be thought of as the 'Nasty Party' now there is a nastier one coming up on the outside. In the same way that Powell made Heath's Tories seem quite decent in comparison I suspect Farage might do the same for Cameron's
    .
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
    We designed the ECHR and signed up to it before there was a Common Market, before we joined it and before there was an EU - why would we want to leave it?

    Are you opposed to the "free movement of labour"? If so, where do you plan to house all the expat Brits repatriated to the UK when we withdraw?


    Wonderful and idiotic misdirection there Carlotta. Just because we designed something over half a century ago does not mean that we still have to believe that it is fit for purpose or desirable to remain a member when its direction is no longer under our control and it is no longer in our interests to remain.

    As for free movement and ex-pats you clearly haven't bothered to read what UKIP are suggesting (why am I not surprised that you make assumptions without the facts?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
    The order people signed up to it doesn't matter. Any debate about leaving the ECHR is inevitably tied up with leaving the EU, as you'd have to do the latter to do the former. Thus it is ridiculous to say they are unrelated things.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
    We designed the ECHR and signed up to it before there was a Common Market, before we joined it and before there was an EU - why would we want to leave it?

    Are you opposed to the "free movement of labour"? If so, where do you plan to house all the expat Brits repatriated to the UK when we withdraw?


    , you want to dig into the right and wrongs of the topic.
    As Mr Parris observes:

    " but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."

    I see problems aplenty - but no monsters....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
    Immaterial. The point is that if the EU is a separate member then if we wish to leave the ECHR then we have to leave the EU. So clearly the two are linked. I am sorry you are finding this basic point of logic so hard to understand.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
    We designed the ECHR and signed up to it before there was a Common Market, before we joined it and before there was an EU - why would we want to leave it?

    Are you opposed to the "free movement of labour"? If so, where do you plan to house all the expat Brits repatriated to the UK when we withdraw?


    You're changing the subject. Your argument was that the things were unrelated, and now you have been shown they are clearly related, you want to dig into the right and wrongs of the topic.
    Establishment: "There will not be as many immigrants arriving in the next two years as the scaremongers are predicting"

    3 years later...

    Average Joe: "Arent there twice the amount of immigrants that you forecast? Werent the 'scaremongers correct?"

    Establishment :"Mass immigration has improved education standards & boosted the economy you racist bigot."
  • eckythumpereckythumper Posts: 27
    Newark is not fertile Ukip territory as it is in a neck of the woods that does not pander to racism unlike the parts of Lincolnshire that has high immigration due to the idleness of the indigenous population viz a viz farm workers and low paid jobs
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited May 2013

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
    Immaterial. The point is that if the EU is a separate member then if we wish to leave the ECHR then we have to leave the EU. So clearly the two are linked. I am sorry you are finding this basic point of logic so hard to understand.
    I am sorry you seem oblivious that your "heightened concern" is not universally shared...

    Are you suggesting that we might want to leave the ECHR but not the EU?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Roger said:

    NB. Poor old Patrick Mercer. He always seemed quite reasonable.

    .

    Really? I clearly remember you referring to him as a racist and bigot in the past. What made you change your mind?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Roger said:

    NB. Poor old Patrick Mercer. He always seemed quite reasonable.

    I wonder whether the Tories will cease be thought of as the 'Nasty Party' now there is a nastier one coming up on the outside. In the same way that Powell made Heath's Tories seem quite decent in comparison I suspect Farage might do the same for Cameron's
    .


    Gawd help us proles while there are still people like you about Roger.

    The 2013 equivalent of a crusty old hippie banging on about CND in 1997


  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    You can not leave the ECHR without leaving the EU. How is that "nowt".

    Your second argument is very weak. 40-50% of our immigration has nothing to do with bogus English colleges.
    We designed the ECHR and signed up to it before there was a Common Market, before we joined it and before there was an EU - why would we want to leave it?

    Are you opposed to the "free movement of labour"? If so, where do you plan to house all the expat Brits repatriated to the UK when we withdraw?


    , you want to dig into the right and wrongs of the topic.
    As Mr Parris observes:

    " but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster."

    I see problems aplenty - but no monsters....
    You seem to be struggling here. If uncontrolled immigration is a problem and ECHR rulings are a problem, then there are limited things you can do to them without opting out the EU. While the term "monster" is overblown, they are indeed related. It's one thing to argue they are not problems, but if you recognise they are problems, than it's laughable to pretend seeing EU membership as a common barrier to resolving both is "extremist".
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Roger said:

    NB. Poor old Patrick Mercer. He always seemed quite reasonable.

    .

    Really? I clearly remember you referring to him as a racist and bigot in the past. What made you change your mind?
    I was going to mention that but thought Roger must be joking... no one could be that swivel eyed

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Newark is not fertile Ukip territory as it is in a neck of the woods that does not pander to racism unlike the parts of Lincolnshire that has high immigration due to the idleness of the indigenous population viz a viz farm workers and low paid jobs

    White people opposed to mass immigration of white people = racist?

    Ok

    2+2=5
    2+2=5

    Do it to Julia Do it to Julia
  • Gerry_ManderGerry_Mander Posts: 621
    Roger said:

    NB. Poor old Patrick Mercer. He always seemed quite reasonable.

    I wonder whether the Tories will cease be thought of as the 'Nasty Party' now there is a nastier one coming up on the outside. In the same way that Powell made Heath's Tories seem quite decent in comparison I suspect Farage might do the same for Cameron's
    .

    Do you mean they might try to 'make the white folks angry'?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    On topic, Labour or UKIP could edge it, but it looks like a Con hold.

    I think the problem is just that it's not really clear who the challenger is. Labour are probably stronger as they get to squeeze the LibDems, but to be in with a shot they also need UKIP to split the right-wing vote. But if UKIP are strong enough to hurt the Tories, there will be some media speculation about how they might win, and they'll squeeze Labour in turn.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970
    edited May 2013
    @RichardT

    "An argument which entirely fails to recognise that no one has and no one will tackle them on any basis because they are part of a collective mindset by politicians who think that they are either a good thing or so unimportant as to be not worth considering."

    I agree with that and good.....because like me most normally balanced people who live in cities (that's most of us) just aren't either scared or or even much interested in these issues-
    -civil servant can discuss them behind the scenes-because those of us who aren't hiding behind our sofas are enjoying the things that our rich mix of cultures and the EU have gifted us. It's just as simple as that.

  • http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any


    I found this an interesting article. I'm right on the Generation X/Y boundary fwiw, in a age cohort that's one of the smallest. I sometimes think that drives the attitudes of me and my direct peers - there are not many of us and we're paying for those older and those younger.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Roger said:

    NB. Poor old Patrick Mercer. He always seemed quite reasonable.

    I wonder whether the Tories will cease be thought of as the 'Nasty Party' now there is a nastier one coming up on the outside. In the same way that Powell made Heath's Tories seem quite decent in comparison I suspect Farage might do the same for Cameron's
    .

    Do you mean they might try to 'make the white folks angry'?
    Yeah but you have to be careful with white people. They love playing divide and rule.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Roger said:

    @RichardT

    "An argument which entirely fails to recognise that no one has and no one will tackle them on any basis because they are part of a collective mindset by politicians who think that they are either a good thing or so unimportant as to be not worth considering."

    I agree with that and good.....because like me most normally balanced people who live in cities (that's most of us) just aren't either scared or or even much interested in these issues-
    -civil servant can discuss them behind the scenes-because those of us who aren't hiding behind our sofas are enjoying the things that our rich mix of cultures and the EU have gifted us. It's just as simple as that.

    Most British people live in towns and villages, not cities.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
    Immaterial. The point is that if the EU is a separate member then if we wish to leave the ECHR then we have to leave the EU. So clearly the two are linked. I am sorry you are finding this basic point of logic so hard to understand.
    I am sorry you seem oblivious that your "heightened concern" is not universally shared...

    Are you suggesting that we might want to leave the ECHR but not the EU?
    I am making no suggestion on either, merely pointing out that you are factually wrong to say that the two are not linked. Since you seem to be disinterested in facts I thought it worth pointing out your error and then leave to others to judge the validity or otherwise of your arguments.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Roger said:

    @RichardT

    "An argument which entirely fails to recognise that no one has and no one will tackle them on any basis because they are part of a collective mindset by politicians who think that they are either a good thing or so unimportant as to be not worth considering."

    I agree with that and good.....because like me most normally balanced people who live in cities (that's most of us) just aren't either scared or or even much interested in these issues-
    -civil servant can discuss them behind the scenes-because those of us who aren't hiding behind our sofas are enjoying the things that our rich mix of cultures and the EU have gifted us. It's just as simple as that.

    Says the champagne socialist living the high life in southern France. You are a million miles from being, normal or balanced Roger.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,970

    'Says the champagne socialist living the high life in southern France. You are a million miles from being, normal or balanced Roger.'

    Is that the view from the Norwegian oil rig?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    Nope it is the view from someone who lives and works in the UK now and has done for the last 4 years or so. More to the point it is the view of someone who was always living in the UK and paying UK taxes as well as Norwegian taxes even when he was working overseas and bringing large amounts of income into the UK.

    Some of us choose to support our country and pay our way even when we disagree with the way the money is being wasted.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    German census delivers a surpise. 1.5 million fewer people living in the country than estimated of which 1.1 million immigrants. And yet they still key getting richer.


    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/zensus-2011-deutschland-hat-1-5-millionen-weniger-einwohner-als-angenommen-12202722.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,402
    edited May 2013
    CON hold, UKIP 2nd, Labour okish 3rd, Lib Dems absolutely demolished is my reckoning.

    W/O Con or 2nd place markets will be the most interesting, UKIP vs Labour methinks. (UKIP is stronger on the east side of Lincs/ this is Notts/The west side where Labour did better in the LEs)

    What price Lib Dems to Lose/Hold deposit is the interesting one for them ;)

    Labour could be worth a sneaky bet for winner if the price is long enough...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,512

    In his days as an MP, and as a young man, Matthew Parris would have identified very closely with the sort of people who now vote UKIP. I suppose that once you start living among Davos men, you adopt their outlook.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    I would suggest Labour have a fairly strong candidate if they keep Ian Campbell in the position. He has been running a high profile and very strongly supported campaign to try and reverse closures and cut backs at the local hospital and if he can play on that he will get a lot of cross party support I think.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013
    You sit around waiting for good news and then it all comes along at once

    Consumer confidence soars towards the ether in May as it leaps 5 points to -22, the strongest reading since November 2012 and 7 points higher than in any other month of 2012.

    The research was carried out by GfK, the polling group, whose Managing Director of Social Research, Nick Moon, concluded:

    "There are now some real signs that consumers, while hardly confident, are moving out of the feeling of despondency that the country has been mired in for the last year or so."

    And if that wasn't enough, the British Chambers of Commerce have revised upward their forecasts for GDP growth between now and 2015.

    The BCC said gross domestic product (GDP) will rise 0.9% this year, 1.9% in 2014 and 2.4% in 2015 compared with earlier predictions of 0.6%, 1.7% and 2.2% respectively.

    Has summer come early this year? The weather may not have caught up with the economy but the sun is certainly shining out of Boy George.

    Where is BenM? He should be out looking for a Georgian suntan.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,001
    Jimmy 2, NZ nil.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Pulpstar said:

    CON hold, UKIP 2nd, Labour okish 3rd, Lib Dems absolutely demolished is my reckoning.

    W/O Con or 2nd place markets will be the most interesting, UKIP vs Labour methinks. (UKIP is stronger on the east side of Lincs/ this is Notts/The west side where Labour did better in the LEs)

    What price Lib Dems to Lose/Hold deposit is the interesting one for them ;)

    Labour could be worth a sneaky bet for winner if the price is long enough...

    Lib Dems have 2 strongish areas in the constituency , Bingham ( in Rushcliffe district ) and Southwell in Newark/Sherwood district , they would certainly save their deposit . Vote shares in the CC seats making up the consituency were around
    Con 43% Lab 20% UKIP 15% LD 14% Ind 8% ( one division only contested by Con and Lab )

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
    Immaterial. The point is that if the EU is a separate member then if we wish to leave the ECHR then we have to leave the EU. So clearly the two are linked. I am sorry you are finding this basic point of logic so hard to understand.
    I am sorry you seem oblivious that your "heightened concern" is not universally shared...

    Are you suggesting that we might want to leave the ECHR but not the EU?
    I am making no suggestion on either
    So you are indifferent?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,001
    NZ 9 Dernbach 0.
    Who is going to bowl the rest of Dernbach's overs? What idiot selected him in the first place? Just incredible.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any


    I found this an interesting article. I'm right on the Generation X/Y boundary fwiw, in a age cohort that's one of the smallest. I sometimes think that drives the attitudes of me and my direct peers - there are not many of us and we're paying for those older and those younger.

    I struggle to see how you're paying for those younger. You presumably had university paid for, where younger generations don't get that.
  • Socrates said:

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any


    I found this an interesting article. I'm right on the Generation X/Y boundary fwiw, in a age cohort that's one of the smallest. I sometimes think that drives the attitudes of me and my direct peers - there are not many of us and we're paying for those older and those younger.

    I struggle to see how you're paying for those younger. You presumably had university paid for, where younger generations don't get that.
    Fair enough, although I was talking about the whole group younger which is a group that appears to get larger with each year.

    Personally, I'm one of the first years with fees, but I also got completely supported because I'm very good at what I do and also because my parent's income was below a threshold. Apostrophe in the correct place there, I think.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596

    Matthew Parrish

    o/t but i listened to a splendid radio 4 programme the other day- great lives: Matthew Parris interviewing John Cooper Clarke about Salvador Dali. Three names you possibly don't really expect to come together.

    Another recent episode of the same show was about Primo Levi, and they had archive interview of levi by Woman's hour. you can slag the bbc all you want, but they do have some amazing stuff/archive
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Dernbach. Maiden. Don't see those words together often.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Socrates said:

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any


    I found this an interesting article. I'm right on the Generation X/Y boundary fwiw, in a age cohort that's one of the smallest. I sometimes think that drives the attitudes of me and my direct peers - there are not many of us and we're paying for those older and those younger.

    I struggle to see how you're paying for those younger. You presumably had university paid for, where younger generations don't get that.
    because my parent's income was below a threshold. Apostrophe in the correct place there, I think.
    Depends on whether you were referring to one parent (correct) or two (parents' income). Apostrophes can mean the difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.....
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682

    Socrates said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Is Matthew Parris trying to argue immigration, EU bureaucracy, the cost of the EU, the plan for European integration, and human rights legislation are unrelated issues?
    The ECHR has nowt to do with the EU - we designed it decades before there was an EU.

    Bogus English Colleges have got nowt to do with the EU either - we could leave, and still have the problem - unless it was being tackled.

    UKIP voters attitudes to a range of issues do exhibit heightened concern ("paranoia" to the unkind) compared to other voters.
    With the EU signing up as an independent member of the ECHR and moves to align decision making between the ECHR and the ECJ, what was true twenty years ago is now no longer necessarily the case.
    The EU is going to be subject to the ECHR - not the other way round.
    Which means that membership of the EU will automatically infer membership of the ECHR. So as Socrates points out you won't be able to withdraw from the ECHR without leaving the EU.

    And as I said there are moves to align rulings between the ECHR and the ECJ.
    No. All EU member states were already signed up to the ECHR - it is the EU playing catch up - and it is ECJ rulings that will be subject to ECHR - not the other way round. But I do note your "heightened concern" on the matter.....
    Immaterial. The point is that if the EU is a separate member then if we wish to leave the ECHR then we have to leave the EU. So clearly the two are linked. I am sorry you are finding this basic point of logic so hard to understand.
    I am sorry you seem oblivious that your "heightened concern" is not universally shared...

    Are you suggesting that we might want to leave the ECHR but not the EU?
    I am making no suggestion on either
    So you are indifferent?
    On the EU I am clear and want out. On the ECHR I am ambivalent. If it can be massively reformed and reigned in then I see no issue with remaining in. If it continues to extend its powers of areas it should have no control then we should leave. Whatever the decision it should be based on our own national interests not tied to membership of another organisation.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2013
    DavidL said:

    NZ 9 Dernbach 0.
    Who is going to bowl the rest of Dernbach's overs? What idiot selected him in the first place? Just incredible.

    Cricinfo suprised by Dernbachs maiden!!

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/engine/current/match/566923.html

    (Theyve edited it, was flashing originally!)
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    NZ 9 Dernbach 0.
    Who is going to bowl the rest of Dernbach's overs? What idiot selected him in the first place? Just incredible.

    Cricinfo suprised by Dernbachs maiden!!

    http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-new-zealand-2013/engine/current/match/566923.html

    (Theyve edited it, was flashing originally!)
    Still flashing when I refresh the page. Tee hee.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013
    Yet more sunshine. This time to warm the cockles of tim's heart.

    The more attentive PB readers will have noted that the UK banks are undercapitalised (by £25 bn according to the BoE PRA) and their mortgage books have been preventing them from easily increasing their risk capital and from supplying credit to households and non-financial enterprises.

    I have been speculating that securitisation of mortgage books and purchases of linked bonds would form the next phase of BoE QE or "unusual monetary interventions".

    But in the meantime the US Housing market has been strongly rebounding and is powering a recovery in both confidence and growth on the other side of the Atlantic. The US banks are also relatively well capitalised and beginning to shake off their risk aversion.

    With the UK recovering in a similar direction, albeit more calmly, market opportunities for private sales of mortgage securities have arisen.

    Lloyds Banking Group, the UK's largest mortgage lender, announced today that they had managed to sell U.S. mortgage-backed securities for 3.3 billion pounds ($5 billion). Lloyds claimed that the sale will result in a pretax gain of 540 million pounds and boost the group’s core Tier 1 capital, a measure of financial strength, by about 1.4 billion pounds.

    The buyers were mainly US based banks, Bank of America Corp., Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse Group AG and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

    The fact that the financial markets are prepared to buy UK mortgage backed securities will greatly accelerate the rate at which the UK banking sector can be recapitalised and restructured. It also makes this process much less dependent on government and BoE intervention, thereby reducing taxpayer risk and government borrowing requirements.

    All good news welcomed by the equity markets who pushed Lloyds's shares up 0.4% to 62.05 pence this morning, above the level of 61 pence set by Osborne for the Government to start selling its shares in the market.

    So come on George, start the selling now. Gordon's debt laden legacy needs to become history.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21578666-britains-youth-are-not-just-more-liberal-their-elders-they-are-also-more-liberal-any


    I found this an interesting article. I'm right on the Generation X/Y boundary fwiw, in a age cohort that's one of the smallest. I sometimes think that drives the attitudes of me and my direct peers - there are not many of us and we're paying for those older and those younger.

    I struggle to see how you're paying for those younger. You presumably had university paid for, where younger generations don't get that.
    Fair enough, although I was talking about the whole group younger which is a group that appears to get larger with each year.

    Personally, I'm one of the first years with fees, but I also got completely supported because I'm very good at what I do and also because my parent's income was below a threshold. Apostrophe in the correct place there, I think.
    I don't see why it matters that the younger group is larger. It's not like each cohort pays the same amount in, and the burden is shared among its members.

    And on fees, your year paid only a small fraction of the fees that today's undergrads have. That means they're closer to those that paid no fees than those that paid fees 5-10 times greater.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "LABOUR’s Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have finally woken up to corporate tax avoidance, the former taking the not-very bold step of laying into Google and the latter setting out some tentative policies to deal with the problem. As with the financial crisis, what neither has addressed is their role in creating the mess in the first place."

    http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&issue=1341
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2013
    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Perfect example of the kind of comment, made by the metropolitan elite, that has seen UKIP go from 1% to 22% in the opinion polls
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2013

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2013
    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    I could be wrong.

    Maybe it should be (Socially liberal + Second home abroad) = treat the working class like dirt

    Or maybe there isn't an equation for it!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,512

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    UKIP's voters are just too stupid to realise that all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited May 2013
    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    antifrank is probably the highest salaried poster on PB.

    I am minded of that great song from the 1940s, sung to the tune of 'The Red Flag':

    The working class can kiss my arse,
    I have got the foreman's job at last.


    I would go on but I fear the rest of the lyrics would damage TSE's fast rising reputation as an editor.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    edited May 2013
    Sean_F said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    UKIP's voters are just too stupid to realise that all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.

    LOL. I am not sure Anti-Frank can be compared with Leibniz. Though clearly he appears to believe in the omnipotence of the EU Commission.
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    My guess rule of thumb is take half each off the three liblabcon parties and see if it's more than the previous winner so not quite but another 2nd place.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    isam said:

    Treat the working class like dirt

    think this s not it exactly, more view the working class as impotent, passive, requiring of their benevolence. actually maybe that's not so different....

  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    More importantly, who is Frank? Does anyone know?
  • MrJonesMrJones Posts: 3,523
    tim said:

    @perdix

    Therefore Cameron and Lynton Crosbys strategy of making Tory voters even more paranoid about immigration is fundamentally flawed.

    Except it seems to be working by shifting voters who might have drifted back to New Labour into UKIP instead.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank & Roger must be trolling

    Wind the UKIPpers up so they'll make a something-ist comment for everyone to decry

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    AveryLP said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    antifrank is probably the highest salaried poster on PB.

    I am minded of that great song from the 1940s, sung to the tune of 'The Red Flag':

    The working class can kiss my arse,
    I have got the foreman's job at last.


    I would go on but I fear the rest of the lyrics would damage TSE's fast rising reputation as an editor.

    It has a long history - here's a 1960s opening:

    The workers’ flag is palest pink
    Since Gaitskell dipped it in the sink
    Now Harold’s done the same as Hugh
    The workers’ flag is brightest blue.

    And one for New Labour:

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=lHShVNPB_N8&desktop_uri=/watch?v=lHShVNPB_N8

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2013
    AveryLP said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    antifrank is probably the highest salaried poster on PB.

    I am minded of that great song from the 1940s, sung to the tune of 'The Red Flag':

    The working class can kiss my arse,
    I have got the foreman's job at last.


    I would go on but I fear the rest of the lyrics would damage TSE's fast rising reputation as an editor.

    ...........and while I'm no more on the dole
    they can stick the red flag up your hole.

    Yeh, I know that one too, Avery. I wonder where you learned it though.
    And a good evening to all. Exciting times we are living through.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @isam Minus points for referring to the "metropolitan elite" without referring to it as the "liberal metropolitan elite".
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,402
    edited May 2013
    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    I have Antifrank down as a classical liberal with an internationalist viewpoint. Yourself as an anti-EU libertarian and iSam as a conservative (Though definitely not a Conservative ! ).
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited May 2013
    Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    I have Antifrank down as a classical liberal with an internationalist viewpoint. Yourself as an anti-EU libertarian and iSam as a conservative (Though definitely not a Conservative ! ).
    Whereas you appear to be a horse. Takes all sorts...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pulpstar said:

    Socrates said:

    isam said:

    antifrank said:

    Matthew Parrish on UKIP:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/matthew-parris/8921021/why-ukip-is-a-party-of-extremists/

    The spirit of Ukippery is paranoid. It distorts and simplifies the world, perceiving a range of different ills and difficulties as all proceeding from two sources: foreigners abroad, and in Britain a ‘metropolitan liberal elite’ (typically thought to be in league with foreigners). None of the problems it identifies (with immigration, with EU bureaucracy, with the cost of the EU, with the ambitions of some Europeanists, with political correctness, with health-and-safety, with human rights legislation etc) are anything less than real; but to the un-extremist mind they need to be tackled ad hoc, one by one, rather than seen as the hydra-headed expression of a single monster.

    Matthew Parris is far too polite about UKIP. Though he correctly identifies that it is actuated in the same manner as a psychiatric disorder rather than a political school of thought.
    Antifrank continues a long line of notable anti-democrats who thought the best way to deal with alternative views to their own was to condemn their opponents as mentally disturbed. I do think all of AF's views should be regarded in the light of that admission.
    Im seeing a link here...

    (Left of centre politically + 2nd home abroad) = Treat the working class like dirt
    Is antifrank left of centre? Doesn't he believe in dismantling the welfare state? (I may be confusing his views with rcs...)
    I have Antifrank down as a classical liberal with an internationalist viewpoint. Yourself as an anti-EU libertarian and iSam as a conservative (Though definitely not a Conservative ! ).
    100% votes cast by moi have been for Labour Ill have ye know!

This discussion has been closed.