politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Both Tories and UKIP go for the tactical vote in their fin

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Both Tories and UKIP go for the tactical vote in their final push in Rochester

conservative @KellyTolhurst appeals to greens/lab/libs: "if you don't want a UKIP MP on Friday, I hope you can support me" #tactical #RSVote

Read the full story here

Stickytroll

First! And I think a double-digit win will be stretching it.

Interested to see how the 'others' pan out...

Indigo

"The polls and PBers in the prediction competition all go for UKIP by a double digit margin and anything less than that will be spun as some form of victory by the blue team."

The blue team are going to struggle with that

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/09/angry-daves-jibe-at-fat-arse-reckless/

The Prime Minister toured the regional receptions getting steadily more pumped up in his anger about Reckless’s duplicity. Rumour is rife the words ‘effing Reckless’, ‘fat arse’ and ‘dick head’ were blurted out in various versions of a tub-thumping turn by Cameron. The Tories are going to fight Rochester hard – that was very clear by the time the PM arrived at Conservative Home’s late night reception for the 1922 Committee. By then Dave was in full blown Mr Angry mode, telling activists and media types that Reckless would be punished.

Working out well so far.

Indigo

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

SimonStClare

Morning all

Re: PB Rochester & Strood competition.

A total of 423 PB regulars and lurkers took part in last weeks competition with the vast majority, 338/85 predicting an UKiP win by an average margin of 10.56%.- How close will the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ be on this occasion?

For the summary/results and a memory recap of how you voted, use the link provided below.

http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbrochester/summary.php?b=0

RobD

SimonStClare said:

Morning all

Re: PB Rochester & Strood competition.

A total of 423 PB regulars and lurkers took part in last weeks competition with the vast majority, 338/85 predicting an UKiP win by an average margin of 10.56%.- How close will the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ be on this occasion?

For the summary/results and a memory recap of how you voted, use the link provided below.

http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbrochester/summary.php?b=0

Thanks! Who voted LD for a 9% margin............. lol.

SimonStClare

RobD said:

SimonStClare said:

Morning all

Re: PB Rochester & Strood competition.

A total of 423 PB regulars and lurkers took part in last weeks competition with the vast majority, 338/85 predicting an UKiP win by an average margin of 10.56%.- How close will the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ be on this occasion?

For the summary/results and a memory recap of how you voted, use the link provided below.

http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbrochester/summary.php?b=0

Thanks! Who voted LD for a 9% margin............. lol.

Obviously someone with a sense of humour – it certainly made me chuckle. ; )

edmundintokyo

Indigo said:

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

If you look actual tweet that quote is based on you'll see that the whole paragraph has been made up by a crazy person. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Indigo

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

If you look actual tweet that quote is based on you'll see that the whole paragraph has been made up by a crazy person. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Shapps doesn't think so

A former Tory foreign minister was rebuked by her party chairman after comparing the deaths of four people in a synagogue in Israel to protests at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Baroness Warsi, who resigned in August over the government’s policy on Gaza, tweeted: ‘Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers – Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers.’

Her comments sparked claims that she was comparing protests at a mosque to the murderous attack by two Palestinians armed with a gun and axe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839666/Warsi-slapped-Tories-comparing-deaths-Israel-synagogue-protests-Jerusalem-mosque.html

edmundintokyo

Indigo said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

If you look actual tweet that quote is based on you'll see that the whole paragraph has been made up by a crazy person. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Shapps doesn't think so

A former Tory foreign minister was rebuked by her party chairman after comparing the deaths of four people in a synagogue in Israel to protests at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Baroness Warsi, who resigned in August over the government’s policy on Gaza, tweeted: ‘Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers – Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers.’

Her comments sparked claims that she was comparing protests at a mosque to the murderous attack by two Palestinians armed with a gun and axe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839666/Warsi-slapped-Tories-comparing-deaths-Israel-synagogue-protests-Jerusalem-mosque.html

You don't need to take Shapps's word for anything, just read the actual tweet. It doesn't say what Spectator crazy person says it does.

Swiss_Bob

It's all going so well for Ed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839599/I-ll-impose-mansion-tax-Pure-Simple-Miliband-mocks-singer-Myleene-Klass-clashing-Labour-plans-target-rich.html

Get monstered by a 'dumb' celeb. After being monstered his big idea is to get into print and get all his followers to do the equivalent of 'thinking of something really clever to say' AFTERWARDS.

So instead of letting it pass, it's front page news for days. Klass.

Indigo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11237844/Why-cant-the-Coalition-fix-the-deficit.html

Why? Because like every other post-war administration, the Coalition counted on being able to balance the books not by cutting back on state spending, but through higher tax revenues.

Fixing public finances on the back of more tax take only works if you are able to take more tax. In the first half of 2014, tax revenue grew less than expected, leaving government borrowing £5 billion higher than it was over the same period the previous year.

Ouch. Maybe also something to do with spending £25bn more on benefits that was planned this parliament as well.

We better hope those Russian banks dont win their lawsuits on EU sanctions...

Indigo

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

If you look actual tweet that quote is based on you'll see that the whole paragraph has been made up by a crazy person. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Shapps doesn't think so

A former Tory foreign minister was rebuked by her party chairman after comparing the deaths of four people in a synagogue in Israel to protests at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Baroness Warsi, who resigned in August over the government’s policy on Gaza, tweeted: ‘Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers – Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers.’

Her comments sparked claims that she was comparing protests at a mosque to the murderous attack by two Palestinians armed with a gun and axe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839666/Warsi-slapped-Tories-comparing-deaths-Israel-synagogue-protests-Jerusalem-mosque.html

You don't need to take Shapps's word for anything, just read the actual tweet. It doesn't say what Spectator crazy person says it does.

She was criticized for this tweet

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/534626779122892800
Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

CarlottaVance

Some respite for Ed in today's YouGov: (vs 2 weeks ago)

In touch with concerns of ordinary people: 20 (+4)
Honest: 17 (+3)
Sticks to what he believes in: 16 (+3)

JonnyJimmy

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

Swiss_Bob

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

JonnyJimmy

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

audreyanne

'There also appeared to be a considerable amount of tactical voting by Labour voters, prepared to vote UKIP to keep the Tories out.' (Sophy Ridge, Sky News)

If this, and Mike's leader, is right then it hands the Conservatives an explanation on Friday.

'Earthquake' is an over-used word. I don't think this will do anything of the sort, unless there are further defections. If there aren't then this will be forgotten within a week.

Swiss_Bob

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Equivalence: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction.

I deny that holding a protest is 'equivalent' to murdering people.

edmundintokyo

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Note how the Mail piece works around the whole thing with the classic weasel wording "compared to". You can get anybody on "comparing" things. For example if I say, "Theresa May's record on civil liberties is bad, but nothing on the scale of Hitler", I'm comparing Theresa May to Hitler.

audreyanne

SimonStClare said:

Morning all

Re: PB Rochester & Strood competition.

A total of 423 PB regulars and lurkers took part in last weeks competition with the vast majority, 338/85 predicting an UKiP win by an average margin of 10.56%.- How close will the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ be on this occasion?

For the summary/results and a memory recap of how you voted, use the link provided below.

http://www.nojam.com/demo/pbrochester/summary.php?b=0

Thanks. Gosh. I'm fairly amazed 83 went for a Conservative win.

For those who occasionally think I cheerlead for the Tories, remember I went UKIP by 11%. What I want and what I think aren't connected in political punting.

david_herdson

Whoever wins, Ed will lose.

Swiss_Bob

edmundintokyo said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Note how the Mail piece works around the whole thing with the classic weasel wording "compared to". You can get anybody on "comparing" things. For example if I say, "Theresa May's record on civil liberties is bad, but nothing on the scale of Hitler", I'm comparing Theresa May to Hitler.

Yes and it would be just as stupid.

JonnyJimmy

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Equivalence: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction.

I deny that holding a protest is 'equivalent' to murdering people.

Well done for googling equivalence. Bravo.

She doesn't actually make any link between the two statements in her tweet, just states one after the other.

She could be implying that Palestinian extremists are murdering bastards, while Israeli ones are just feeble intimidators. I know she's not implying that, but it could just as validly be inferred.

From her other tweets I think it's quite clear that she's implying that the intimidation by the Israelis was the cause of the killing by the Palestinians. That doesn't mean, either, that she's implying that the intimidation justified the killings.

No doubt she should have been more careful to make sure that nobody could infer from her tweet that she thought the two were equivalent, but do you really believe that she thinks a protest and murder are equal crimes?

Socrates

audreyanne said:

'There also appeared to be a considerable amount of tactical voting by Labour voters, prepared to vote UKIP to keep the Tories out.' (Sophy Ridge, Sky News)

If this, and Mike's leader, is right then it hands the Conservatives an explanation on Friday.

If they use that as an explanation, doesn't it contradict the entire Cameroon project?

The Cameroons believed the Tories were toxic because they were too focused on right wing things like immigration and the EU and had to become more social democratic in order to win votes from the centre. The Cameroons critics have said that the Tories problems was they were toxic because they were seen as too focused on the rich and not standing up for the man on the street on issues they are concerned about like crime and immigration.

If left-wing voters tactically vote for UKIP over the Conservatives, it pretty much shows that the latter strategy is the more sensible one, and that the entire Cameroon project has been a mistake.

Socrates

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

If you look actual tweet that quote is based on you'll see that the whole paragraph has been made up by a crazy person. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Shapps doesn't think so

A former Tory foreign minister was rebuked by her party chairman after comparing the deaths of four people in a synagogue in Israel to protests at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Baroness Warsi, who resigned in August over the government’s policy on Gaza, tweeted: ‘Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers – Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers.’

Her comments sparked claims that she was comparing protests at a mosque to the murderous attack by two Palestinians armed with a gun and axe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839666/Warsi-slapped-Tories-comparing-deaths-Israel-synagogue-protests-Jerusalem-mosque.html

You don't need to take Shapps's word for anything, just read the actual tweet. It doesn't say what Spectator crazy person says it does.

I'm very critical of the actions of Israel, but I think that Tweet does say - or at least imply - what the Spectator person says it does. Warsi is throwing up her hands at both sides for being "extremist", when clearly the actions of one group she's talking about are nothing like the actions of the other.

Swiss_Bob

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Equivalence: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction.

I deny that holding a protest is 'equivalent' to murdering people.

Well done for googling equivalence. Bravo.

She doesn't actually make any link between the two statements in her tweet, just states one after the other.

She could be implying that Palestinian extremists are murdering bastards, while Israeli ones are just feeble intimidators. I know she's not implying that, but it could just as validly be inferred.

From her other tweets I think it's quite clear that she's implying that the intimidation by the Israelis was the cause of the killing by the Palestinians. That doesn't mean, either, that she's implying that the intimidation justified the killings.

No doubt she should have been more careful to make sure that nobody could infer from her tweet that she thought the two were equivalent, but do you really believe that she thinks a protest and murder are equal crimes?

Hilarious. The link she makes is putting both statements in the same tweet. Or in your head is that not linking.

Try looking up 'linking' in Google, it might help your understanding.

edmundintokyo

Socrates said:

audreyanne said:

'There also appeared to be a considerable amount of tactical voting by Labour voters, prepared to vote UKIP to keep the Tories out.' (Sophy Ridge, Sky News)

If this, and Mike's leader, is right then it hands the Conservatives an explanation on Friday.

If they use that as an explanation, doesn't it contradict the entire Cameroon project?

The Cameroons believed the Tories were toxic because they were too focused on right wing things like immigration and the EU and had to become more social democratic in order to win votes from the centre. The Cameroons critics have said that the Tories problems was they were toxic because they were seen as too focused on the rich and not standing up for the man on the street on issues they are concerned about like crime and immigration.

If left-wing voters tactically vote for UKIP over the Conservatives, it pretty much shows that the latter strategy is the more sensible one, and that the entire Cameroon project has been a mistake.

You can't really draw that conclusion because:
1) The Labour voters might just be being partisan and supporting their main enemy's enemy, rather than it being anything to do with Cameron's positioning.
2) This is one particular constituency which main not be typical, and a by-election which will have different dynamics from the general election, which is what the Tories need to optimize for.

Socrates

AndyJS said:

"Tory candidate in Rochester byelection demands action on immigration
Kelly Tolhurst, who trails Ukip’s Mark Reckless in polls, says she will go straight to PM with her concerns if she wins"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/tory-candidate-rochester-byelection-immigration?CMP=twt_gu

And Cameron will nod sagely and then do nothing to change free movement of labour.

edmundintokyo

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

edmundintokyo said:

Indigo said:

Warsi making friends and influencing people

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/baroness-warsi-uses-her-retirement-to-provoke-british-jews/

In Sayeeda Warsi’s world you see, Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying. It is a relief that Sayeeda Warsi is no longer in the cabinet. But what a disgrace that she ever got there in the first place. As for any further future? The ‘Respect’ party does not currently have a representative in the House of Lords. Why doesn’t Warsi apply?

If you look actual tweet that quote is based on you'll see that the whole paragraph has been made up by a crazy person. It doesn't say anything of the sort.

Shapps doesn't think so

A former Tory foreign minister was rebuked by her party chairman after comparing the deaths of four people in a synagogue in Israel to protests at the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

Baroness Warsi, who resigned in August over the government’s policy on Gaza, tweeted: ‘Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers – Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers.’

Her comments sparked claims that she was comparing protests at a mosque to the murderous attack by two Palestinians armed with a gun and axe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839666/Warsi-slapped-Tories-comparing-deaths-Israel-synagogue-protests-Jerusalem-mosque.html

You don't need to take Shapps's word for anything, just read the actual tweet. It doesn't say what Spectator crazy person says it does.

I'm very critical of the actions of Israel, but I think that Tweet does say - or at least imply - what the Spectator person says it does. Warsi is throwing up her hands at both sides for being "extremist", when clearly the actions of one group she's talking about are nothing like the actions of the other.

The specific claim was that she said that

"Jews who protest that it is wrong only for Muslims to be allowed to pray at a site in Jerusalem holy to both Muslims and Jews are morally equivalent to Palestinian Muslims who use meat cleavers to butcher rabbis while they are praying."

She doesn't say that or imply that, or anything like it. The "morally equivalent" part was made up by the Spectator writer.

Socrates

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Equivalence: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction.

I deny that holding a protest is 'equivalent' to murdering people.

Well done for googling equivalence. Bravo.

She doesn't actually make any link between the two statements in her tweet, just states one after the other.

She could be implying that Palestinian extremists are murdering bastards, while Israeli ones are just feeble intimidators. I know she's not implying that, but it could just as validly be inferred.

From her other tweets I think it's quite clear that she's implying that the intimidation by the Israelis was the cause of the killing by the Palestinians. That doesn't mean, either, that she's implying that the intimidation justified the killings.

No doubt she should have been more careful to make sure that nobody could infer from her tweet that she thought the two were equivalent, but do you really believe that she thinks a protest and murder are equal crimes?

Hilarious. The link she makes is putting both statements in the same tweet. Or in your head is that not linking.

Try looking up 'linking' in Google, it might help your understanding.

Not just putting them in the same tweet, but using the same language and sentence formation to describe them. She's clearly drawing an equivalence. It would be the same if I did the following:

"The British want to stop free movement of labour. The French want to stop free movement of capital."
"Neo-Nazis hate Jews. Labour hate bankers."
"The Americans invaded Iraq. The Russians invaded Ukraine."

In all cases you're deliberately using similar language to imply the crux of the two situations are similar.

Indigo

Socrates said:

AndyJS said:

"Tory candidate in Rochester byelection demands action on immigration
Kelly Tolhurst, who trails Ukip’s Mark Reckless in polls, says she will go straight to PM with her concerns if she wins"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/tory-candidate-rochester-byelection-immigration?CMP=twt_gu

And Cameron will nod sagely and then do nothing to change free movement of labour.

If she is lucky, otherwise he might say "Yes we realise you have to say those sort of things to get elected, and under the circumstances of course we understand, but now you are here I dont want you to think we would appreciate those sort of views being bandied around, not if you want to get on in the party", or words to that effect

CarlottaVance

david_herdson said:

Whoever wins, Ed will lose.

That's not how his coterie will see it in the bunker "One Nation" Labour will congratulate themselves on Cameron's discomforture, oblivious to the notion that a Blair five and a half months from a GE he aimed to win would have flung the kitchen sink at it.....

[Deleted User]

I predicted a 10.00% margin win for UKIP in the competition. I now think it will be a fair bit tighter than that. But still UKIP.

Swiss_Bob

Socrates said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Equivalence: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction.

I deny that holding a protest is 'equivalent' to murdering people.

Well done for googling equivalence. Bravo.

She doesn't actually make any link between the two statements in her tweet, just states one after the other.

She could be implying that Palestinian extremists are murdering bastards, while Israeli ones are just feeble intimidators. I know she's not implying that, but it could just as validly be inferred.

From her other tweets I think it's quite clear that she's implying that the intimidation by the Israelis was the cause of the killing by the Palestinians. That doesn't mean, either, that she's implying that the intimidation justified the killings.

No doubt she should have been more careful to make sure that nobody could infer from her tweet that she thought the two were equivalent, but do you really believe that she thinks a protest and murder are equal crimes?

Hilarious. The link she makes is putting both statements in the same tweet. Or in your head is that not linking.

Try looking up 'linking' in Google, it might help your understanding.

Not just putting them in the same tweet, but using the same language and sentence formation to describe them. She's clearly drawing an equivalence. It would be the same if I did the following:

"The British want to stop free movement of labour. The French want to stop free movement of capital."
"Neo-Nazis hate Jews. Labour hate bankers."
"The Americans invaded Iraq. The Russians invaded Ukraine."

In all cases you're deliberately using similar language to imply the crux of the two situations are similar.

You complained I used Google to give you a definition but you clearly need one:

Linking: connecting or joining something to something else.

Which is what she did.

Off to work.

JonnyJimmy

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Swiss_Bob said:

JonnyJimmy said:

Indigo said:

Which implies equivalence between two acts, despite one being a protest, and the other a multiple homicide of people at prayer.

I don't think it necessarily implies equivalence, though you, Murray and Shapps seem to have inferred it.

I reckon she's implying a causal relationship between the two.

She called both 'extremists', there is the equivalence.

And she says one lot of extremists 'intimidated', the other lot 'killed 4'. There is the lack of it.

Equivalence: the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction.

I deny that holding a protest is 'equivalent' to murdering people.

Well done for googling equivalence. Bravo.

She doesn't actually make any link between the two statements in her tweet, just states one after the other.

She could be implying that Palestinian extremists are murdering bastards, while Israeli ones are just feeble intimidators. I know she's not implying that, but it could just as validly be inferred.

From her other tweets I think it's quite clear that she's implying that the intimidation by the Israelis was the cause of the killing by the Palestinians. That doesn't mean, either, that she's implying that the intimidation justified the killings.

No doubt she should have been more careful to make sure that nobody could infer from her tweet that she thought the two were equivalent, but do you really believe that she thinks a protest and murder are equal crimes?

Hilarious. The link she makes is putting both statements in the same tweet. Or in your head is that not linking.

Try looking up 'linking' in Google, it might help your understanding.

I'm obviously aware that she put them in the same tweet. It's why I was able to notice that there was no link between the "statements in her tweet". The point is that there being no linking word means that we can't be sure what she's implying, we can only infer what she's thinking.

My guess, based on her other tweets, is that she thinks that the protest by the Israelis was the cause of the murder by the Palestinians.

Your guess seems to be that she thinks that annoying Muslims with a protest is near enough equally bad to be worthy of labelling it equivalent to murdering Israelis.

That or you hate Warsi so will wilfully misinterpret her.

Socrates

Swiss_Bob said:

You complained I used Google to give you a definition but you clearly need one:

Linking: connecting or joining something to something else.

Which is what she did.

Off to work.

I'm agreeing with your case and backing you up, and in exchange you're being rude to me.

JonnyJimmy

Socrates said:

Swiss_Bob said:

You complained I used Google to give you a definition but you clearly need one:

Linking: connecting or joining something to something else.

Which is what she did.

Off to work.

I'm agreeing with your case and backing you up, and in exchange you're being rude to me.

He's got his quoting wrong and is clearly responding to me

SquareRoot

Poor Ed is taking a hell of a pasting in the Daily Mail front article online.. and its not the Mail's fault. ED is just not a Klass act.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2839599/I-ll-impose-mansion-tax-Pure-Simple-Miliband-mocks-singer-Myleene-Klass-clashing-Labour-plans-target-rich.html

CarlottaVance

Send em back!

The cry of the racist down the ages.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2840189/Ukip-candidate-jeered-hinting-EU-arrivals-repatriated.html

[Deleted User]

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

JonnyJimmy

Swiss_Bob said:

You complained I used Google to give you a definition but you clearly need one:

Linking: connecting or joining something to something else.

Which is what she did.

Off to work.

I didn't complain, I snidely applauded you for it.

SimonStClare

I read Warsi’s tweet, to me she is merely referencing the initial act by Israelis and the escalated tit-for-tat response by Palestinians. – Look at the hashtags #tragic - #peacnotwar

There is no claim to ‘moral equivalence’ here, just a fear that if there are further reprisals it could lead to another war.

edmundintokyo

CarlottaVance said:

david_herdson said:

Whoever wins, Ed will lose.

That's not how his coterie will see it in the bunker "One Nation" Labour will congratulate themselves on Cameron's discomforture, oblivious to the notion that a Blair five and a half months from a GE he aimed to win would have flung the kitchen sink at it.....

Admittedly this wasn't five and a half months from a GE but Labour hardly seem to have bothered in Romsey in 2000. It's a reasonable strategy: By-elections are more about the media coverage than the actual result and they're hard to win without talking up your chances in advance, but if you do that then lose it'll produce "defeat" coverage, so it's often better not to play than to play and lose. All the more so if your enemy's enemy ends up beating your enemy, which is the next-best thing to winning it yourself.

Socrates

CarlottaVance said:

Send em back!

The cry of the racist down the ages.....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2840189/Ukip-candidate-jeered-hinting-EU-arrivals-repatriated.html

Thanks for providing another example of false equivalence. It's exactly the sort of stupid comparison Baroness Warsi made.

JackW

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

For some LibDems heavily associated with PB it should be noted that their follicular sanity is a sensitive subject.

DavidL

As a wild stab I think UKIP's margin of victory might be 4.2% or thereby. Here's hoping anyway.

Not that I have ever had much luck with lucky dips.

Socrates

My God, the Conservatives are unbelievable:

Ukip parliamentary candidate Mark Reckless has caused outrage by suggesting migrants who have lived here for several years could be repatriated. The former Tory, on course to win the Eurosceptic party’s second seat tomorrow, said if Britain left the European Union they should only be able to stay for a ‘fixed period’. Asked if his party would want to deport a plumber from Poland who owned a home and had children at local schools he did not rule it out, but said this would be a case ‘we would look sympathetically at’.

Former home office minister Damian Green said Mr Reckless had come ‘perilously close’ to a policy of repatriation and insisted his remarks were ‘totally unacceptable’.

Except that's EXACTLY what Damian Green has endorsed for non-EU migrants. Here's one case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-29742967

edmundintokyo

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

I'm too foreign to vote in British elections these days but if I still had a vote I think I'd be supporting them now. Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories, the Greens want to stop people building things, and the Pirates probably wouldn't be running a candidate where I was.

How did you know about my hair?

Socrates

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

I'm too foreign to vote in British elections these days but if I still had a vote I think I'd be supporting them now. Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories, the Greens want to stop people building things, and the Pirates probably wouldn't be running a candidate where I was.

How did you know about my hair?

I love how doing anything at all - even vague statements with no policy to back them up - about the biggest concern to the UK public is "tabloid pandering".

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

I'm too foreign to vote in British elections these days but if I still had a vote I think I'd be supporting them now. Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories, the Greens want to stop people building things, and the Pirates probably wouldn't be running a candidate where I was.

How did you know about my hair?

Hope that's nothing to do with the radioactive leak you described so well.

And don't most Lib Dems compensate with facial hair, the women especially?

edmundintokyo

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

I'm too foreign to vote in British elections these days but if I still had a vote I think I'd be supporting them now. Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories, the Greens want to stop people building things, and the Pirates probably wouldn't be running a candidate where I was.

How did you know about my hair?

I love how doing anything at all - even vague statements with no policy to back them up - about the biggest concern to the UK public is "tabloid pandering".

A lack of workable detail is one of the classic signs of a tabloid pander, as opposed to a policy designed to solve an actual problem.

BTW I guess you're thinking of immigration, but that's not the only issue here - for example another one you probably follow is getting ISPs to censor the internet.

Socrates

I also see the Labour candidate joined in the idiocy:

His remarks were met with jeers and the Labour candidate, PR consultant Naushabah Khan, whose father came from Pakistan in the 1980s and whose mother is Kenyan Asian, said: ‘Where would you stop Mark? My family are migrants, are we going to say they need to go back as well?’

Yes, having a visa system that allows foreign nationals to stay for a fixed time period before being required to return to their home nation is just like deporting British nationals. Is she up in arms every time someone gets to the end of their visa and doesn't qualify for another one?

Seriously, how thick are Labour and Conservtive politicians these days? Their lack of logic is so gaping, I'm amazed they can string a sentence together.

[Deleted User]

JackW said:

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

For some LibDems heavily associated with PB it should be noted that their follicular sanity is a sensitive subject.

It's a well known fact that voting Conservative makes your wife's breasts grow larger and that voting LibDem makes you bald.
I'll let the PB commentariat decide!

Socrates

edmundintokyo said:

Socrates said:

edmundintokyo said:

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

I'm too foreign to vote in British elections these days but if I still had a vote I think I'd be supporting them now. Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories, the Greens want to stop people building things, and the Pirates probably wouldn't be running a candidate where I was.

How did you know about my hair?

I love how doing anything at all - even vague statements with no policy to back them up - about the biggest concern to the UK public is "tabloid pandering".

The lack of workable detail is one of the signs of a tabloid pander, as opposed to a policy designed to solve an actual problem.

BTW I guess you're thinking of immigration, but that's not the only issue here - for example another one you probably follow is getting ISPs to censor the internet.

Fair points. I retract my post.

Roger

EiT

"Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories,"

I think you're right. If what I heard yesterday on immigrant bashing turns out to be more than one person going off piste I'll probably waste my vote on the Greens who I have little time for but at least aren't part of the group grovelling in the gutter for the votes of Mail and Sun readers. Unfortunately too many Lib Dems have soiled themselves for ministerial trappings for my taste

Scrapheap_as_was

I would like to call on the good people of Rochester & Strood to support the local lady who just happens to be a conservative* to keep out the traitorous pigdog now under the mixed review UKIP banner.

You can always reconsider his application in May 2015, assuming he's not moved elsewhere by then.... why not see if he does or does not by resting him on the bench for a few months?

*small financial interest in outcome.

[Deleted User]

Roger - why not waste your vote on the Loonies? They're not that mad and John of this parish would no doubt appreciate the support.

Indigo

Roger said:

EiT

"Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories,"

I think you're right. If what I heard yesterday on immigrant bashing turns out to be more than one person going off piste I'll probably waste my vote on the Greens who I have little time for but at least aren't part of the group grovelling in the gutter for the votes of Mail and Sun readers. Unfortunately too many Lib Dems have soiled themselves for ministerial trappings for my taste

What an extraordinary post. So rather than be seen agreeing with around a third of the population, its much better to vote for protest parties that have not soiled themselves with "ministerial trappings" and hence dont actually make a difference to anything. So much nicer to have pure hands, and be an irrelevance that to have to make tough decisions.

DavidL

This does look like it is going to be a bad result for the tories (any defeat is a bad result once you have drawn your line in the sand) but for Labour it is looking truly catastrophic.

How do they get to a point that their vote is so squeezed in a seat that they held only 4 years ago? How did they become so irrelevant to our political discourse? If I was a Labour MP in southern or eastern England with a smallish majority I would be seriously worried.

Unlike the Scots MPs who are much closer to actual despair. As usual Labour have proved incapable of organising anything, let alone a coup, but you can understand the grumbling.

Financier

Roger said:

EiT

"Labour's tabloid pandering is going beyond the trivial and harmless and getting hard to distinguish from the Tories,"

I think you're right. If what I heard yesterday on immigrant bashing turns out to be more than one person going off piste I'll probably waste my vote on the Greens who I have little time for but at least aren't part of the group grovelling in the gutter for the votes of Mail and Sun readers. Unfortunately too many Lib Dems have soiled themselves for ministerial trappings for my taste

Roger, are you really that snobbish?

peter_from_putney

Patrick said:

Roger - why not waste your vote on the Loonies? They're not that mad and John of this parish would no doubt appreciate the support.

John Loony some time ago declared himself a Tory did he not?

JackW

Patrick said:

JackW said:

Patrick said:

I largely missed the previous thread. I note that the LibDems are on 5%. This is astonishing. Fully one person in 20 is planning to vote for them! Who are these people? They're mad. All their hair will fall out.

For some LibDems heavily associated with PB it should be noted that their follicular sanity is a sensitive subject.

It's a well known fact that voting Conservative makes your wife's breasts grow larger and that voting LibDem makes you bald.
I'll let the PB commentariat decide!

I always knew page 3 of the "Sun" was a subtle and cunning Conservative subliminal message to white van man.

Millsy

Looks like enough people will want to give Cameron a bloody nose - this is a by-election after all. I hope Reckless enjoys his time in the limelight though, unless the Tories screw up in the election campaign it is entirely possible they will get the seat back.

Hopefully Lord Ashcroft will do an exit poll. It would be interesting to know how many Labour voters do plump for the Tories

MikeK

Theres always going to be a bit of back pedalling in the last days, so I've made my margin of a UKIP win at Rochester as 6.6%.

Scrapheap_as_was

MikeK said:

Theres always going to be a bit of back pedalling in the last days, so I've made my margin of a UKIP win at Rochester as 6.6%.

Why?

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

How do [Labour] get to a point that their vote is so squeezed in a seat that they held only 4 years ago?

Wikipedia has 2010 down as a Con hold, presumably with reference to the notionals since it had new boundaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

DavidL

O/T more than 2 years after the UK government stopped printing money on such an incredible scale (and then using it to rig the market in its own debt, stealing hundreds of billions from savers in the process) the Commons is finally getting around to debating it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11239084/For-believes-in-monetary-voodoo-try-this-for-a-spin.html

It really makes the idea that the Commons controls the finances of the government let alone the country look ridiculous. They would be better continuing to pretend not to notice how they were side lined.

Swiss_Bob

Socrates said:

Swiss_Bob said:

You complained I used Google to give you a definition but you clearly need one:

Linking: connecting or joining something to something else.

Which is what she did.

Off to work.

I'm agreeing with your case and backing you up, and in exchange you're being rude to me.

Socrates said:

Swiss_Bob said:

You complained I used Google to give you a definition but you clearly need one:

Linking: connecting or joining something to something else.

Which is what she did.

Off to work.

I'm agreeing with your case and backing you up, and in exchange you're being rude to me.

Mr Socrates, I did NOT reply to you.

The reply you are referring to is further down thread in response to another poster.

In the context of what you wrote my 'response' makes no sense.

You'll have to ask Mr Smithson what's up. I think I will change my password.

DavidL

edmundintokyo said:

DavidL said:

How do [Labour] get to a point that their vote is so squeezed in a seat that they held only 4 years ago?

Wikipedia has 2010 down as a Con hold, presumably with reference to the notionals since it had new boundaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

Yes there were some boundary changes which changed the balance by a few hundred votes and it was a marginal in 2005 when I remember the then MP confidently asserting he had lost only to be pleasantly surprised but this was territory in which Blair could and did win.

CD13

I see Labour and the Conservatives are now dancing to the Ukip tune yet still trying to differentiate themselves by accusing Ukip of being more extreme than they are. They should take it as a compliment.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or is it - if you can't beat them, join them?

Scrapheap_as_was

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

another_richard

Twelve weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

When is Home Secretary Theresa May going to take action against the South Yorkshire police after the widespread media reports of their collaboration with child rapists.

When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham's Childrens Services into special measures.

What action is Policing Minister Mike Penning taking to ensure that the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave of arrests' takes place.

How much did the locally well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest despite his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' whilst Leader of the Opposition.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Would Labour want a tactical vote for, or against, the blues? It would harm the Conservatives to lose Rochester, after all. Longer term, such a victory risks feeding the UKIP dragon.

Swiss_Bob

Mr Smithson,

Can you investigate Socrates complaint down thread where I appear to have replied to him.

The original reply was to another poster before 8:00, the reply to Socrates was after 8:00 and I wasn't even at my computer, I think. It is either an error in the commenting system or someone has used my login.

If it is someone using my profile I would appreciate you letting me know.

Socrates

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

What on Earth are you talking about? Reckless said that they would be given visas for a limited period, after which they would need to return home if they didn't fufill other immigration requirements for a different type of visa. You realise we do this for non-EU migrants and have done for decades?

The things people say about UKIP beggar belief sometimes. I can't work out if the people banging on about such things are deliberately manufacturing outrage, or are just really just that stupid.

foxinsoxuk

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

I remember when "If they're black, send them back" was a National Front chant.

My heart sinks at the prospect of the pig-dog MP. Tollhurst seems as bad.

FalseFlag

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

I don't see issue, if we leave the EU then of course those in this country illegally will have to go home or be deported. The political media elite picking another fight in an area where their opinion diverges wildly from the public.

Scrapheap_as_was

Socrates said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

What on Earth are you talking about? Reckless said that they would be given visas for a limited period, after which they would need to return home if they didn't fufill other immigration requirements for a different type of visa. You realise we do this for non-EU migrants and have done for decades?

So why the need to make this clarification?

Socrates

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Socrates said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

What on Earth are you talking about? Reckless said that they would be given visas for a limited period, after which they would need to return home if they didn't fufill other immigration requirements for a different type of visa. You realise we do this for non-EU migrants and have done for decades?

So why the need to make this clarification?

Because he was asked a question about it in a debate?

The actual emphasis of his point was that a transitional grace period would be needed, as we move EU migrants into the system of non-EU migrants.

Roger

Musing about Rochester....if I was a voter.....

My least favourite candidate is the Tory. My favourite candidate is the Labour one followed by Reckless.

The Labour girl has no chance and her party are getting a bit whiffy on immigrants but Reckless's party are led by a fascist. The Green and Lib Dem candidates looked like they won their canditure in a raffle so a pointless vote for pointless candidates.

So it's Reckless or Labour.... I'd like to see the Labour candidate progress personally which a big vote might do but Recklass would make sure the Tory candidate (the like of whom I haven't seen before) never saw the light of day ......

Difficult decision. I'd decide when I got into the polling booth

Easterross

Morning all and clearly if Reckless wins tomorrow it will be disappointing for we Tories. However will the narrative change very quickly if this is largely due to a collapse in the Labour vote and it going UKIP?

edmundintokyo

Swiss_Bob said:

Mr Smithson,

Can you investigate Socrates complaint down thread where I appear to have replied to him.

The original reply was to another poster before 8:00, the reply to Socrates was after 8:00 and I wasn't even at my computer, I think. It is either an error in the commenting system or someone has used my login.

If it is someone using my profile I would appreciate you letting me know.

Are you sure you didn't accidentally hit the quote button on the wrong post? It's easy to do, especially if your browser's running slow because it sticks the quoted comment in the reply box but doesn't get around to actually moving you up there. Then if you hit reply for somebody else's post the original reply stays there, and it just shunts the post you actually wanted to quote onto the end.

FalseFlag

Easterross said:

Morning all and clearly if Reckless wins tomorrow it will be disappointing for we Tories. However will the narrative change very quickly if this is largely due to a collapse in the Labour vote and it going UKIP?

Nice spin but it's a bigger problem for the Cameroons than it is Labour.

Socrates

foxinsoxuk said:

I remember when "If they're black, send them back" was a National Front chant..

You realise the difference in deporting foreign nationals because they have come to the end of the visa and deporting British nationals because they have a dark skin colour?

The supporters of other parties just seem to embrace their inner imbecile when it comes to UKIP.

another_richard

DavidL said:

This does look like it is going to be a bad result for the tories (any defeat is a bad result once you have drawn your line in the sand) but for Labour it is looking truly catastrophic.

How do they get to a point that their vote is so squeezed in a seat that they held only 4 years ago? How did they become so irrelevant to our political discourse? If I was a Labour MP in southern or eastern England with a smallish majority I would be seriously worried.

Unlike the Scots MPs who are much closer to actual despair. As usual Labour have proved incapable of organising anything, let alone a coup, but you can understand the grumbling.

Labour MPs in the south-eastern half of England get elected on the support of middle class public sector workers and non-white voters.

And that line is steadily advancing northwestwards.

But it does mean that Labour MPs in Luton, Oxford and Slough are safe and that Labour will make gains in outer London.

Sean_F

foxinsoxuk said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

I remember when "If they're black, send them back" was a National Front chant.

My heart sinks at the prospect of the pig-dog MP. Tollhurst seems as bad.

I'm a bit mystified by the argument that imposing the same immigration controls on (mainly White) EU citizens as on (mainly non-White) non-EU citizens is somehow "racist"

FalseFlag

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0J00R920141116?irpc=932

Jerusalem's non Jews are being ethnically cleansed, if they don't make a stand now then there won't be another chance to. Building settlements in the proposed future capital of a Palestinian state shows the seriousness of the Jewish state's attitude to a peaceful settlement and indicates the ultimate fate that will befall the indigenous people.

Swiss_Bob

edmundintokyo said:

Swiss_Bob said:

Mr Smithson,

Can you investigate Socrates complaint down thread where I appear to have replied to him.

The original reply was to another poster before 8:00, the reply to Socrates was after 8:00 and I wasn't even at my computer, I think. It is either an error in the commenting system or someone has used my login.

If it is someone using my profile I would appreciate you letting me know.

Are you sure you didn't accidentally hit the quote button on the wrong post? It's easy to do, especially if your browser's running slow because it sticks the quoted comment in the reply box but doesn't get around to actually moving you up there. Then if you hit reply for somebody else's post the original reply stays there, and it just shunts the post you actually wanted to quote onto the end.

I'm normally quite careful when I post and in this case I 'appear' to have replied to two different posters at two different times with the same comment.

It doesn't make sense because after the first reply I went to get ready for work, am now at a different PC ('at work') and saw Socrates reply to me. I have changed my password.

SouthamObserver

another_richard - "Labour MPs in the south-eastern half of England get elected on the support of middle class public sector workers and non-white voters"

Absolute bollocks. I know and work with white working class and middle class, private sector Labour voters. They all live in the south-east of England.

CD13

Roger,

"Reckless's party are led by a fascist"

Superb.

Your obvious vote is for the SWP. If they aren't standing, you'll have to vote Labour like the other "Trots". Yes, I know that's silly hyperbole, but you started it.

FalseFlag

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

I remember when "If they're black, send them back" was a National Front chant.

My heart sinks at the prospect of the pig-dog MP. Tollhurst seems as bad.

I'm a bit mystified by the argument that imposing the same immigration controls on (mainly White) EU citizens as on (mainly non-White) non-EU citizens is somehow "racist"

Immigration policy is 'racist', I don't suppose critics are suggesting we don't have one.

No_Offence_Alan

O, the irony of the anti-AV Tory party begging for tactical votes.

Scott_P

Labour's new stance on immigration...

@JohnRentoul: Morten Morland in The Times today http://t.co/KejstrNRol

Scott_P

@patrickwintour: UKIP in statement "clarifies" Mark Reckless hustings remarks, reverting to previous policy that existing legal EU migrants can remain.

Socrates

Sean_F said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....


Sam Coates Times retweeted
Robin Brant‏@robindbrant·4 mins4 minutes ago
.@ukip 'clarifies' comments from @MarkReckless at debate last night when he appeared to say migrants should be repatriated if UK leaves EU

I remember when "If they're black, send them back" was a National Front chant.

My heart sinks at the prospect of the pig-dog MP. Tollhurst seems as bad.

I'm a bit mystified by the argument that imposing the same immigration controls on (mainly White) EU citizens as on (mainly non-White) non-EU citizens is somehow "racist"

It's stupid enough for anyone to do this, but Damian Green, the immigration minister who has stepped up the requirements to stay in the UK when you come to the end of a visa, has also expressed outrage, saying such things were "totally unacceptable".

The Tories have become utterly shameless in aping Labour's 1990 tactics of screaming racist. They're even screaming it at the same sort of policies they themselves back and expand.

Sean_F

Socrates said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

How do UKIP attract such people....

The things people say about UKIP beggar belief sometimes. I can't work out if the people banging on about such things are deliberately manufacturing outrage, or are just really just that stupid.

There's the question. Does Charles Walker really believe house prices will fall if UKIP wins? Are Charles Elphicke's constituents truly upset by Marf's cartoon?

I don't think it's any big surprise that UKIP wouldn't continue a policy of free migration from the EU?

Socrates

Scott_P said:

@patrickwintour: UKIP in statement "clarifies" Mark Reckless hustings remarks, reverting to previous policy that existing legal EU migrants can remain.

UKIP's policy is that those who have been here for quite a few years, and are thus equivalent to people with ILR, can stay. Those who have just arrived in the last couple, and are thus equivalent to short term visas, would get a new visa and have to apply somewhere else or leave.

Presumably Patrick Wintour has been confused by UKIP wording. There's been no "reversion".

Scrapheap_as_was

Scott_P said:

@patrickwintour: UKIP in statement "clarifies" Mark Reckless hustings remarks, reverting to previous policy that existing legal EU migrants can remain.

Is this what was being explained is UKIP policy earlier in the thread.... visas being needed by existing EU migrants etc - it's just too confusing for my pretty little head.

TGOHF

Does Reckless want the Labour candidate repatriated ?

CD13

Roger,

"Reckless's party are led by a fascist."

In the spirit of comradely and mutual aid, may I suggest ...

"Reckless's party are led by a fascist running pig dog to the Capitalist hyena."