Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

24

Comments

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    edited November 2014
    CD13

    Farage doesn't want Romanians living next door (to him)

    Should they wear yellow stars?
  • How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    TGOHF said:

    Does Reckless want the Labour candidate repatriated ?

    Has the Labour candidate commented on Rotherham?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TGOHF said:

    Does Reckless want the Labour candidate repatriated ?

    Is she a foreign citizen that's reached the end of her visa?

    I've seen some really stupid reactions to non-events, but the one to this deporting thing is taking it to new levels.
  • Socrates said:

    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".
    Mr Socrates, I have PM'd you.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,959
    edited November 2014
    I expect the story post the Rochester result to be influenced by if any Tory MPs want to play the role(s) of Burgess and Blunt to Carswell's and Reckless' Philby and Maclean
  • 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.

    Perhaps you'd like to list the Labour held constituencies in south-eastern England ?

    I'll do it for you:

    Luton North
    Luton South
    Oxford East
    Slough
    Southampton Itchen
    Southampton Test

    And lots in London.

    Lets expand south-eastern England into neighbouring counties and see how many Labour MPs there are:

    Lincolnshire = none
    Leicestershire = Leicester W, Leicester E, Leicester S
    Northamptonshire = none in 2010, Corby gained in a byelection
    Warwickshire = none
    Gloucestershire = none
    Wiltshire = none
    Dorset = none

    Do you begin to see a pattern here ?

    Or would you prefer to trust your famed anecdote based electoral knowledge.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Roger,

    Farage will make the trains run on time and invade Abysinnia?
  • O, the irony of the anti-AV Tory party begging for tactical votes.

    Yes, it really is delicious isn't it. One wonders what the Tory view would be if the AV vote was being held now. I suspect still against. The purpose of the party is, notionally at least, to conserve things. Still it'd be more of a debate within Tory circles I suspect.
  • How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    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 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.
    Mark Senior in dreamland
  • O, the irony of the anti-AV Tory party begging for tactical votes.

    Yes, it really is delicious isn't it. One wonders what the Tory view would be if the AV vote was being held now. I suspect still against. The purpose of the party is, notionally at least, to conserve things. Still it'd be more of a debate within Tory circles I suspect.
    I'd still vote against AV, as Clegg said it is a miserable little compromise.

    It creates a majority where none exists and turns landslides into routs.

    Give us proper electoral reform and we'll vote for it.

    Multi member STV is the way to go.
  • O, the irony of the anti-AV Tory party begging for tactical votes.

    Yes, it really is delicious isn't it. One wonders what the Tory view would be if the AV vote was being held now. I suspect still against. The purpose of the party is, notionally at least, to conserve things. Still it'd be more of a debate within Tory circles I suspect.
    I'd still vote against AV, as Clegg said it is a miserable little compromise.

    It creates a majority where none exists and turns landslides into routs.

    Give us proper electoral reform and we'll vote for it.

    Multi member STV is the way to go.
    Nah. Open-list PR in 4-5 member constituencies is my preferred choice. David Herdson convinced me.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    Roger said:

    CD13

    Farage doesn't want Romanians living next door (to him)

    Should they wear yellow stars?

    Do you truly believe such nonsense?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,534
    TGOHF said:

    Does Reckless want the Labour candidate repatriated ?

    Are you suggesting the Labour candidate is not a British national?

  • F1: McLaren to announce driver lineup next month:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30107277

    Bit late. They haven't officially confirmed Alonso, but if he doesn't join them now it'd be quite the surprise.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014
    Well everyone is well on song today. Almost everyone (and almost every party) wants to talk about cutting immigration, but conveniently forget that this means a) letting less people into the country, and b) telling some people when their visa expires that we dont want them in the country any more. Well who would have thought it, we cant do that because its "racist", even if the person in question is caucasian apparently.

    This is the British not being able to help themselves again, just about every other country in the world has vista requirements for non-nationals, and just about every other country in the world tries (with varying degrees of success) to chuck people out of their countries when their visas expire, but the poor Brits can't apparently handle the stress of being a bit nasty to people, so they go on paying for their healthcare and benefits forever instead.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Pulpstar 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

    RobD 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.
    Mark Senior in dreamland
    Well, at least Margate's not too far away.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited November 2014

    How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Quite so. This will be unpopular on many many levels...

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/immigration-insecurity-hysteria-ukips-trusty-formula-rochester


  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Does Reckless want the Labour candidate repatriated ?

    Are you suggesting the Labour candidate is not a British national?

    I wasnt aware that you could stand as a candidate on a visitor's visa... well you live and learn.
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    CD13

    Farage doesn't want Romanians living next door (to him)

    Should they wear yellow stars?

    Do you truly believe such nonsense?
    No of course he doesn't, he is just feeling out of sorts because the assorted liberal voting options are getting to think about having to pay for things rather than just spraying around other people's money, and the "ministerial trappings" is upsetting him.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Roger said:

    CD13

    Farage doesn't want Romanians living next door (to him)

    Should they wear yellow stars?

    Don't be more of a blithering fool than you are, Roger.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Quite so. This will be unpopular on many many levels...

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/immigration-insecurity-hysteria-ukips-trusty-formula-rochester
    Its funny how Conservatives now immediately reach for the Guardian when they want to illustrate what will be unpopular with the voters these days. As a Tory I would be more concerned about the 33% of voters would vote UKIP if they thought they were capable of winning in their area, which suggests that a lot of their views are finding favor with the voters even if they wouldn't admit it to their friends of a pollster.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    So far this month, the Conservatives have been <30% in 4 polls, Labour have been <30% in 3 polls. Who can lose first?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Is the correct collective noun for a group of Pig-dogs a pack or a herd?

  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    Whatever the result in Rochester there will be statements about GE 2015 being impossible to call.My vote will be to go for UNS.There have been all sorts of sophisticated methodologies advanced but it is worth looking back at the 2010 election.There were some complications in terms of boundary changes but UNS from 2005 to 2010 did pretty well.Using vote changes to get swings between parties UNS would have produced Con gains 87(actual 97),Labour losses 82(Act 91),LD losses 4(act 5).Of course there were some surprise results in a few constituencies but the overall result it total is pretty good Clearly separate.English Scottish and Welsh swings will be need to be fed into the process for 2015.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I noticed that that BBC radio 4 news has butted into the Rochester by-election this morning by naming Reckless' remarks on immigration at last nights hustings. Last ditch attempt at siding with the Lab/Lib/Cons then?
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited November 2014
    @MikeK
    Many thanks for mentioning the 'Gardens of the moon' the other day. I've started reading the Malazan series.
  • How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Is the correct collective noun for a group of Pig-dogs a pack or a herd?

    No.

    It is a Sol of traitorous pig dogs.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    @MikeK
    Many thanks for mentioning the 'Gardens of the moon' the other day. I've started reading the Malazan series.

    Don't mention it; my pleasure. I'm doing a re-read of the series and am now on to "House of Chains".
  • Mr. Dave/Mr. K, I read Gardens of the Moon a few years ago now. I can see why others like it, and it had its moments, but for me it was too much skirt and not enough leg.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR, and parliament is sovereign again. If parliament passes primary legislation stating clearly that non-UK nationals will require a visa to re-enter the country after a transitional period of say five years, with the applicant bearing the cost for the visa application just as all non-EU applicants do, I can't see the courts being that receptive to a challenge. I dare say the 19bn saved every year by not giving it to the EU might cushion the blow a little, especially if it was returned to businesses as tax cuts.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    JackW said:

    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.

    A bit of a strange one, though. One of the regulars comes from Latvia.
  • Indigo said:

    How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Quite so. This will be unpopular on many many levels...

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/immigration-insecurity-hysteria-ukips-trusty-formula-rochester
    Its funny how Conservatives now immediately reach for the Guardian when they want to illustrate what will be unpopular with the voters these days. As a Tory I would be more concerned about the 33% of voters would vote UKIP if they thought they were capable of winning in their area, which suggests that a lot of their views are finding favor with the voters even if they wouldn't admit it to their friends of a pollster.
    My enemy's enemy is my friend.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564

    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.

    There is some non-Government action going on:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/rotherham-abuse-scandal-police-watchdog-investigate-conduct-10-officers
    DavidL said:

    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.

    That's my impression too FWIW. I think the Tories may well have pulled back a bit in Rochester in recent days (I doubt in Cameron would have gone back there yesterday if they didn't think so), though the length of the campaign may limit the impact - can't be that many floating voters left.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.
  • Mr. Scrapheap, but blues running to the Guardian just reinforce the notions that:
    a) you're all the same (LibLabCon)
    b) the Conservatives have lost their way and aren't there for socially conservative chaps anymore
  • How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Is the correct collective noun for a group of Pig-dogs a pack or a herd?

    No.

    It is a Sol of traitorous pig dogs.
    Please do flag the use of that phrase with some yellow boxes or a ********** etc just to warn me that it's being used.... it still causes much distress in scrap towers.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR, and parliament is sovereign again. If parliament passes primary legislation stating clearly that non-UK nationals will require a visa to re-enter the country after a transitional period of say five years, with the applicant bearing the cost for the visa application just as all non-EU applicants do, I can't see the courts being that receptive to a challenge. I dare say the 19bn saved every year by not giving it to the EU might cushion the blow a little, especially if it was returned to businesses as tax cuts.
    MikeK said:

    I noticed that that BBC radio 4 news has butted into the Rochester by-election this morning by naming Reckless' remarks on immigration at last nights hustings. Last ditch attempt at siding with the Lab/Lib/Cons then?

    BBC think the UKIP voters of R&S will be outraged and change their vote, I think they might be sorely disappointed. The BBC live in their little metropolitan liberal elite bubble can't comprehend that what Reckless said might actually sound quite good to fair few R&S voters.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited November 2014

    Mr. Dave/Mr. K, I read Gardens of the Moon a few years ago now. I can see why others like it, and it had its moments, but for me it was too much skirt and not enough leg.

    You're being sexy again Mr Dancer. The Malazan series is an aquired taste Morris. Why don't you start "The Way of Kings" by Brendan Sanderson. Brilliant!

    Now I'm off for a few hours.
  • Mr. Scrapheap, but blues running to the Guardian just reinforce the notions that:
    a) you're all the same (LibLabCon)
    b) the Conservatives have lost their way and aren't there for socially conservative chaps anymore

    Lefties are just so good at this sort of righteous indignation and far more practised at it - would be a waste of it when we're against the same opponent.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    edited November 2014
    Indigo said:

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR
    Membership of the ECHR has nothing to do with being in the EU. There will be challenges under Article 8 etc.

    It astonishes me that UKIP think that tracking down every EU citizen in the UK, establishing how long they have lived there, obtaining their biometric details and requiring them to attend a visa interview is a serious proposition.

    Then you're relying on the Home Office to enforce the visa regime, which is a bit of a problem given they demonstraby can't cope with a system that's half the size of the one UKIP would be proposing. The ongoing costs would be huge. To give but one example, every border control post in the country would need to be redesigned to cope with the larger number of kmmigration officers needed, as the need to check visas for everyone would inevitably increase waiting times dramatically .
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564
    Funny by-election sketch, with elements familiar to anyone who has ever does any canvassing

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/reckless-rochester-byelection-attention-detail-brussels-bureacrat-ukip
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Indigo said:

    How long exactly is "quite a few years" please?

    I take back all the nasty things I've said about the pig dog traitor.

    I'm glad a man who needs his comments on repatriation clarifying by UKIP high command is no longer in our party.
    Quite so. This will be unpopular on many many levels...

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/immigration-insecurity-hysteria-ukips-trusty-formula-rochester
    Its funny how Conservatives now immediately reach for the Guardian when they want to illustrate what will be unpopular with the voters these days. As a Tory I would be more concerned about the 33% of voters would vote UKIP if they thought they were capable of winning in their area, which suggests that a lot of their views are finding favor with the voters even if they wouldn't admit it to their friends of a pollster.
    The Guardian's anti-Catholicism during the Papal Visit put TSE to shame.

    The idea that they're any sort of moral touchstone is risible.
  • 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.

    Perhaps you'd like to list the Labour held constituencies in south-eastern England ?

    I'll do it for you:

    Luton North
    Luton South
    Oxford East
    Slough
    Southampton Itchen
    Southampton Test

    And lots in London.

    Lets expand south-eastern England into neighbouring counties and see how many Labour MPs there are:

    Lincolnshire = none
    Leicestershire = Leicester W, Leicester E, Leicester S
    Northamptonshire = none in 2010, Corby gained in a byelection
    Warwickshire = none
    Gloucestershire = none
    Wiltshire = none
    Dorset = none

    Do you begin to see a pattern here ?

    Or would you prefer to trust your famed anecdote based electoral knowledge.

    I do not share your belief that the only people voting Labour in those constituencies have brown skin or are middle class public sector workers.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.

    Or, voters that are concerned about immigration tend to move away from areas with high levels of immigration.
  • Funny by-election sketch, with elements familiar to anyone who has ever does any canvassing

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/reckless-rochester-byelection-attention-detail-brussels-bureacrat-ukip

    It's ok for you to link to the guardian!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Does Reckless want the Labour candidate repatriated ?

    Are you suggesting the Labour candidate is not a British national?

    In the BNP days you could tell who they hated by looking at someone. This Kipper ever changing subtlety is hard to follow. Some brown bad, some good, whites good but only if not Jews or from East of Leipzig. I cant keep up.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801

    Indigo said:

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR
    Membership of the ECHR has nothing to do with being in the EU. There will be challenges under Article 8 etc.

    It astonishes me that UKIP think that tracking down every EU citizen in the UK, establishing how long they have lived there, obtaining their biometric details and requiring them to attend a visa interview is a serious proposition.

    Then you're relying on the Home Office to enforce the visa regime, which is a bit of a problem given they demonstraby can't cope with a system that's half the size of the one UKIP would be proposing. The ongoing costs would be huge.
    Most will go home and self deport. Same goes with illegals provided the existing laws aren't too much for May to enforce.
  • Mr. K, I'm always sexy, but that's neither here nor there.

    I really liked The Way of Kings [and yes, I know, it's similar in skirt/leg composition]. Reminds me, I need to buy the next book soon (I think that, and the second Douglas Hulick novel, are already out).

    With time/money constraints I'm not interested in trying to get into a series when the first book, whilst well-written, has too much mystery and not enough reveal for me.

    Inquisition aside: it's possible the Keep import won't work on the PS3 due to a problem with the browser [if you can sign into Origin on your console you should be fine]. Just a heads up, so anyone pre-ordered but with multiple platforms available can shift their pre-order [no idea of the situation for the 360, pretty sure it'll work for the others].

    *sighs* And I went to all the trouble of recreating the total **** that was my Warden. Ah well. Maybe it'll work.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Indigo said:

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR
    Membership of the ECHR has nothing to do with being in the EU. There will be challenges under Article 8 etc.
    Except its UKIP policy to withdraw from the EHCR.

    http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    edited November 2014
    Indigo said:

    BBC think the UKIP voters of R&S will be outraged and change their vote, I think they might be sorely disappointed. The BBC live in their little metropolitan liberal elite bubble can't comprehend that what Reckless said might actually sound quite good to fair few R&S voters.

    Ah, yes, the BBC.

    Another liberal moral guardian shown to be nothing of the sort.

    Both the Guardian and BBC are propped up by public cash, of course.
  • Funny by-election sketch, with elements familiar to anyone who has ever does any canvassing

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/reckless-rochester-byelection-attention-detail-brussels-bureacrat-ukip

    It's ok for you to link to the guardian!
    A rainbow alliance in there..

    The uneasy mix of old and new Ukip is on view elsewhere. An elderly couple who used to vote BNP mill alongside a fed-up Labour voter: everyone seems to know what they don’t like but few have any clear vision of what they want.

    “Cameron and Miliband are useless,” one of them says firmly. Will Nigel Farage be better? “Oh no. Nigel doesn’t want to run the country. He just wants to shake things up a bit.” So who would run the country, then? There is a long pause that turns into a silence.
  • NinoinozNinoinoz Posts: 1,312
    Indigo said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.

    Or, voters that are concerned about immigration tend to move away from areas with high levels of immigration.
    I must confess to being baffled by people who understand the notion of immigration, the movement of people hundreds or thousands of miles, but then cannot understand the concept of internal migration, the movement of people a few miles from their place of origin.

    Where did they think all those Londoners went in the last ten years? Into thin air?
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    FalseFlag 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.

    We have millions of illegals at present and how many get sent back every year?

    What normally happens is we ignore them and then hand out UK passports like confetti. I note none of the top 4 in 2013 were from the EU - cannot access full data! But it'd be wacist to point this out.

    We can also safely vouch the Paksitani contingent will reliably vote Labour and import their brides.
  • Itajai said:

    FalseFlag 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.

    We have millions of illegals at present and how many get sent back every year?

    What normally happens is we ignore them and then hand out UK passports like confetti. I note none of the top 4 in 2013 were from the EU - cannot access full data! But it'd be wacist to point this out.

    We can also safely vouch the Paksitani contingent will reliably vote Labour and import their brides.
    A nice example of kipper paranoia untethered to any basis in reality.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    edited November 2014
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    CD13

    Farage doesn't want Romanians living next door (to him)

    Should they wear yellow stars?

    Do you truly believe such nonsense?

    Thought green crescents for Muslims.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited November 2014
    I really really really can't believe that anyone in Labour HQ PR let themselves indulge in this stuff.

    Trying to be a smartarse never works well when you weren't supposed to be a dumbnuts in the first place. And 24hrs later? Like a sad rebuffed boyfriend?

    I'd struggle to tell you who Ms Klass was - and certainly couldn't spot her in a queue - but now I'm pretty impressed by her observations and feistiness. I'd be cringing if he was my Party Leader.
    Swiss_Bob said:

    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.

  • F1: perhaps unsurprisingly, Ecclestone isn't very keen on the idea of giving smaller teams a fair share/more money:
    http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/9569031/bernie-ecclestone-standing-firm-on-f1-revenue-distribution-as-debate-continues

    Three car teams or customer cars would not be good for the sport, I fear.

    DAI: hmm. Review on Amazon US suggests Keep will import on PS3. Anyway, we'll find out soon.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    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.

    To be fair, Labour are in long-term decline in Essex and Kent. Even in 2001 and 2005, the swings there against them were far above the national average, and there's quite a lot of southern seats which look like better territory for them now (all the Brighton seats, Hastings, even arguably Reading).

    Even if Labour were on course for a majority (which I don't think they are), I wouldn't necessarily expect them to win this seat, or indeed to win any seats in Essex and Kent except Thurrock.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,564

    Funny by-election sketch, with elements familiar to anyone who has ever does any canvassing

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/reckless-rochester-byelection-attention-detail-brussels-bureacrat-ukip

    It's ok for you to link to the guardian!
    We are glad to provide you with covering fire, comrade.
  • In R and S yesterday.
    Some swing to the Blues. Several comments about where's Ed?
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited November 2014
    Plato said:

    I really really really can't believe that anyone in Labour HQ PR let themselves indulge in this stuff.

    Trying to be a smartarse never works well when you weren't supposed to be a dumbnuts in the first place. And 24hrs later? Like a sad rebuffed boyfriend?

    I'd struggle to tell you who Ms Klass was - and certainly couldn't spot her in a queue - but now I'm pretty impressed by her observations and feistiness. I'd be cringing if he was my Party Leader.

    Swiss_Bob said:

    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.

    I have a litmus test that, if the Daily Mail commenters are backing the "left-wing" stance on something, it really must be public opinion. And here are some of the top-rated comments for that article:

    "Is Klass living in la-la Richland? I don't know a single granny living in a mansion. Obviously if they live in mansions they are rich by definition. What is wrong with taxing the rich please?"

    "...Poor little Myleen in her mansion.....amazing what bathing in a bikini in Celebrity Jungle can do for a womans career ....and bank balance...."

    "You dont hear her moan about the bedroom tax,when you tread on the feet of the rich they squeal.if you dont want to pay your fair share myleen emigrate.you wont be missed"

    "Idiot Klass said on proposed mansion tax "you can't point at things and tax them" Sure you can. IDS said there's a bedroom, and there's a tax."

    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
  • Mr. Palmer, just wondering what you make of the view that a strong UKIP (up to a certain point) is great for Labour as it harms the Conservatives but after that certain point (perhaps high teens) UKIP starts to eat into Labour's vote and take (from that point onwards) relatively little more from the blues.

    A Goldilocks situation, if you like, for the reds. If UKIP collapses the Conservatives would gain a lot, if UKIP waxes then Labour could be at risk in the north, but if UKIP's polling is just right it damages the Conservatives and leaves Labour almost untouched.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Ninoinoz said:

    Indigo said:

    BBC think the UKIP voters of R&S will be outraged and change their vote, I think they might be sorely disappointed. The BBC live in their little metropolitan liberal elite bubble can't comprehend that what Reckless said might actually sound quite good to fair few R&S voters.

    Ah, yes, the BBC.

    Another liberal moral guardian shown to be nothing of the sort.

    Both the Guardian and BBC are propped up by public cash, of course.

    And the BBC actively hates those who have to pay its poll tax.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Haven't read the thread, just the header

    If the Tories try to spin even a 7-8 point loss as some kind of victory it will be one of biggest acts of desperation in political history and make them look complete fools

    Do not forget that all the experts on here, as well as the in the Tory camp, seriously thought they were going to give UKIP a kicking in this one. Going back through the threads there will be dozens of claims that "Reckless is no Carswell" etc etc

    Put it this way, I forecast a comfortable UKIP win at the start, and by comfortable I meant 4-5 points, as the offer of Cons +5 at EVENS that I made proves.. At the time that was bigger than the markets predicted, so lets not get into believing that it was always going to be an easy victory.. Conservatives were favourites with the bookies for a while

    If UKIP don't win, I will not be saying "well I never thought we would, it was the 271st most UKIP seat" etc.. I will fess up that I called it wrong
  • Funny by-election sketch, with elements familiar to anyone who has ever does any canvassing

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/reckless-rochester-byelection-attention-detail-brussels-bureacrat-ukip

    It's ok for you to link to the guardian!
    We are glad to provide you with covering fire, comrade.
    Thank you brother. I suppose the BBC is out too.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30111694
  • impartial said:

    In R and S yesterday.
    Some swing to the Blues. Several comments about where's Ed?

    No doubt kippers wanting him down there to work his magic...
  • Mr. Isam, you're over-egging the cake. A purple victory is now fully expected. Only an unexpectedly large margin would change people's views of how things stand.

    Four to five points isn't a huge margin.

    [For the record, I was one of those who thought that the blues would win. Right now, it seems unlikely to be the case].
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Indigo said:

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR
    Membership of the ECHR has nothing to do with being in the EU. There will be challenges under Article 8 etc.
    Incorrect. Membership of the ECHR is required by membership of the EU. We can not leave the convention while we remain a member. Thus they are intrinsically connected.

    It astonishes me that UKIP think that tracking down every EU citizen in the UK, establishing how long they have lived there, obtaining their biometric details and requiring them to attend a visa interview is a serious proposition.

    Even if we ignore the ones that have been here more than seven years and thus instantly qualify, and the ones that can apply to be here under other systems, I would imagine that most of the remainder are law-abiding decent people that will return to their own countries when they have no right to be here. The criminal minority are the only ones that would need to be tracked down.

    Are you suggesting that "every EU citizen in the UK" is a criminal sort that will break immigration laws once they no longer have the right to be here?
  • Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.

    Out of interest, how do you explain the large movements of white Londoners out of London to Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire before there was any mass immigration? Were they anticipating the arrival of brown people? And is it not conceivable that may people leaving London now - including immigrants and their children - may be leveraging house prices to secure much bigger, better homes in much less built-up, more attractive parts of the country?

  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    antifrank said:

    Itajai said:

    FalseFlag 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.

    We have millions of illegals at present and how many get sent back every year?

    What normally happens is we ignore them and then hand out UK passports like confetti. I note none of the top 4 in 2013 were from the EU - cannot access full data! But it'd be wacist to point this out.

    We can also safely vouch the Paksitani contingent will reliably vote Labour and import their brides.
    A nice example of kipper paranoia untethered to any basis in reality.

    You can't seriously think there are less than 1m illegal migrants in the UK?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    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.

    There is some non-Government action going on:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/rotherham-abuse-scandal-police-watchdog-investigate-conduct-10-officers

    The Rotherham situation will have continued action because the council there felt politically embarrassed enough to do a report that wasn't a whitewash. What's horrendous is that there is no action whatsoever on investigating the abuses in council areas where the council has not done this. We know this form of abuse has happened in at least two dozen towns. Why isn't the government doing anything about this? Why aren't the Labour opposition demanding action on it? Why aren't you personally demanding the extent of these crimes be investigated, given that Professor Jay said it was very likely the Rotherham situation has happened in other towns?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @OGH 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.

    I voted tactically - went for the lower bound: UKIP win with 4.32% lead (it may have been 6.32% - was changing my mind).

    Did it not get recorded - it was 5 minutes before the end of Homeland...

  • Socrates said:

    Indigo said:

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR
    Membership of the ECHR has nothing to do with being in the EU. There will be challenges under Article 8 etc.
    Incorrect. Membership of the ECHR is required by membership of the EU. We can not leave the convention while we remain a member. Thus they are intrinsically connected.

    It astonishes me that UKIP think that tracking down every EU citizen in the UK, establishing how long they have lived there, obtaining their biometric details and requiring them to attend a visa interview is a serious proposition.

    Even if we ignore the ones that have been here more than seven years and thus instantly qualify, and the ones that can apply to be here under other systems, I would imagine that most of the remainder are law-abiding decent people that will return to their own countries when they have no right to be here. The criminal minority are the only ones that would need to be tracked down.

    Are you suggesting that "every EU citizen in the UK" is a criminal sort that will break immigration laws once they no longer have the right to be here?

    We can have population swaps as they did after the Greco-Turkish wars. We expel hardworking, taxpaying southern and eastern Europeans and get back retired, benefits-guzzling pensioners. It's a bargain. Of course, we should be tracking down the criminals now.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    It's entirely understandable that Clacton wouldn't want to become like Newham or Kilburn.
  • Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    It's entirely understandable that Clacton wouldn't want to become like Newham or Kilburn.

    Keep the Irish out of Clacton.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Socrates said:

    BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    It's entirely understandable that Clacton wouldn't want to become like Newham or Kilburn.
    Yes, it's rather proud of having the most deprived district in England.

    Certainly worth standing up for!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    We will still be none the wiser as to whether Kippers can ever obtain a seat without a defection.


  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.

    Out of interest, how do you explain the large movements of white Londoners out of London to Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire before there was any mass immigration? Were they anticipating the arrival of brown people? And is it not conceivable that may people leaving London now - including immigrants and their children - may be leveraging house prices to secure much bigger, better homes in much less built-up, more attractive parts of the country?


    Do we know when the movement to Essex, Kent and Herts started. How many MPs did they have prewar and after 1945. I suspect most of this growth was started after 1945. Possibly as a response to immigration.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!


    It might not be a paradise but it certainly isn't multicultural.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    The immigration Clacton has had is from UK councils dumping their poor there:

    "What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11151491/Clacton-by-election-The-Tories-cannot-fight-for-leafy-areas-and-forget-the-poor.html

    http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/turning-the-tide-social-justice-in-five-seaside-towns
  • The costaliving crisis.

    David Cameron‏@David_Cameron·9m9 minutes ago
    There's also been a 4.1% pay rise for people who've been in work for more than a year. Our long term plan is working for Britain.
  • Good-o!

    Yvette climbs on the Reckless Repatriation Rumpus:

    Once again, a Ukip candidate has let the mask slip to show the extent of their nasty and divisive views, and their outdated vision for Britain. To hear the language of repatriation coming from someone they hope will be their second MP is shameful. It’s a policy that comes straight out of the last BNP manifesto and does not reflect British values. Be it Mark Reckless talking about repatriation, council candidates who attack Lenny Henry for the colour of his skin, or party thugs who overturn other parties street stalls, nasty views are not far below the surface.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/19/ukips-mark-reckless-suggests-eu-migrants-should-be-sent-home-reaction-politics-live-blog#block-546c63c4e4b0e8ca6784d403
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721
    Socrates said:

    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.

    There is some non-Government action going on:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/18/rotherham-abuse-scandal-police-watchdog-investigate-conduct-10-officers

    The Rotherham situation will have continued action because the council there felt politically embarrassed enough to do a report that wasn't a whitewash. What's horrendous is that there is no action whatsoever on investigating the abuses in council areas where the council has not done this. We know this form of abuse has happened in at least two dozen towns. Why isn't the government doing anything about this? Why aren't the Labour opposition demanding action on it? Why aren't you personally demanding the extent of these crimes be investigated, given that Professor Jay said it was very likely the Rotherham situation has happened in other towns?


    We know why Labour say nothing. They dare not challenge the keys tenets of their PC faith. And they dare not alienate one of their captive voting blocks.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    Socrates said:

    Indigo said:

    Are UKIP prepared to say just how much the cost of the massive increase in govt bureaucracy that will be needed to issue every EU citizen in the UK with a biometric visa will require (plus dealing with the inevitable legal challenge)? What about the cost to business of having to apply for a Tier 2 visa every time they need to transfer an EU employee into the UK?

    Bonus points if you identify which taxes you will raise to pay for it.

    Legal challenge to where, if we have just left the EU, we are not bound by the ECJ or the ECHR
    Membership of the ECHR has nothing to do with being in the EU. There will be challenges under Article 8 etc.
    Incorrect. Membership of the ECHR is required by membership of the EU. We can not leave the convention while we remain a member. Thus they are intrinsically connected.

    It astonishes me that UKIP think that tracking down every EU citizen in the UK, establishing how long they have lived there, obtaining their biometric details and requiring them to attend a visa interview is a serious proposition.

    Even if we ignore the ones that have been here more than seven years and thus instantly qualify, and the ones that can apply to be here under other systems, I would imagine that most of the remainder are law-abiding decent people that will return to their own countries when they have no right to be here. The criminal minority are the only ones that would need to be tracked down.

    Are you suggesting that "every EU citizen in the UK" is a criminal sort that will break immigration laws once they no longer have the right to be here?
    It would be a lot of work.

    Even the link you propose between the ECHR and EU (which, for the time being, I would argue is not quite accurate) is insufficient to answer the point, vis, leaving the EU would still leave us in the ECHR. Moreover even if we left the ECHR, we'd have the HRA, and if we abolished that, there would still be plenty of grounds of challenge that the method adopted for the task at hand was inappropriate.
  • Itajai said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.

    Out of interest, how do you explain the large movements of white Londoners out of London to Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire before there was any mass immigration? Were they anticipating the arrival of brown people? And is it not conceivable that may people leaving London now - including immigrants and their children - may be leveraging house prices to secure much bigger, better homes in much less built-up, more attractive parts of the country?


    Do we know when the movement to Essex, Kent and Herts started. How many MPs did they have prewar and after 1945. I suspect most of this growth was started after 1945. Possibly as a response to immigration.

    No, actually as a response to London being bombed to pieces, slum clearance and the construction of a number of new towns and the expansion of many others. London's population declined until the 80s, when it started to rise again.

  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    Good-o!

    Yvette climbs on the Reckless Repatriation Rumpus:

    Once again, a Ukip candidate has let the mask slip to show the extent of their nasty and divisive views, and their outdated vision for Britain. To hear the language of repatriation coming from someone they hope will be their second MP is shameful. It’s a policy that comes straight out of the last BNP manifesto and does not reflect British values. Be it Mark Reckless talking about repatriation, council candidates who attack Lenny Henry for the colour of his skin, or party thugs who overturn other parties street stalls, nasty views are not far below the surface.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/nov/19/ukips-mark-reckless-suggests-eu-migrants-should-be-sent-home-reaction-politics-live-blog#block-546c63c4e4b0e8ca6784d403

    party thugs who overturn other parties street stalls - thought that was Labour and their hard left acolytes attacking anyone who does not believe in the one true faith of PCness.
  • Socrates said:

    Incorrect. Membership of the ECHR is required by membership of the EU. We can not leave the convention while we remain a member. Thus they are intrinsically connected.

    That is not correct. The rights in the European Covention on Human Rights constitute general principles of EU law (art. 6(3) TEU). There is, however, no requirement for existing member states to be be members of the Council of Europe.
  • BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    The immigration Clacton has had is from UK councils dumping their poor there:

    "What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11151491/Clacton-by-election-The-Tories-cannot-fight-for-leafy-areas-and-forget-the-poor.html

    http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/turning-the-tide-social-justice-in-five-seaside-towns

    Indeed - the poor, the dispossessed and immigrants tend to move into properties that are vacant and low rent. In other words, the folk that used to live in them have already fled.

  • Labour are good fun aren't they... given Ed's battle against dark forces, strange choice of paper for Reeves to make her play?


    3s George Eaton @georgeeaton
    Yvette Cooper on Reckless's comments on migrant repatriation: "It's a policy that comes straight out of the last BNP manifesto".

    2m George Eaton @georgeeaton
    Rachel Reeves has sent an email to the whole PLP on her Daily Mail piece on migrants' benefits. Some in Labour very unhappy.
  • ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    Itajai said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.

    Out of interest, how do you explain the large movements of white Londoners out of London to Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire before there was any mass immigration? Were they anticipating the arrival of brown people? And is it not conceivable that may people leaving London now - including immigrants and their children - may be leveraging house prices to secure much bigger, better homes in much less built-up, more attractive parts of the country?


    Do we know when the movement to Essex, Kent and Herts started. How many MPs did they have prewar and after 1945. I suspect most of this growth was started after 1945. Possibly as a response to immigration.

    No, actually as a response to London being bombed to pieces, slum clearance and the construction of a number of new towns and the expansion of many others. London's population declined until the 80s, when it started to rise again.


    New towns were started in 1948. Coincidentally at the same time as mass immigration started - did people move there from poor areas attracting immigration? How long did it take for Brixton to become significantly non-white. The trendies might not like it but people moved out as they did not want to live next to non-whites.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    The immigration Clacton has had is from UK councils dumping their poor there:

    "What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11151491/Clacton-by-election-The-Tories-cannot-fight-for-leafy-areas-and-forget-the-poor.html

    http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/turning-the-tide-social-justice-in-five-seaside-towns

    Indeed - the poor, the dispossessed and immigrants tend to move into properties that are vacant and low rent. In other words, the folk that used to live in them have already fled.

    ??
    The B&Bs used to rent to tourists.
  • Itajai said:

    Itajai said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.

    Out of interest, how do you explain the large movements of white Londoners out of London to Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire before there was any mass immigration? Were they anticipating the arrival of brown people? And is it not conceivable that may people leaving London now - including immigrants and their children - may be leveraging house prices to secure much bigger, better homes in much less built-up, more attractive parts of the country?


    Do we know when the movement to Essex, Kent and Herts started. How many MPs did they have prewar and after 1945. I suspect most of this growth was started after 1945. Possibly as a response to immigration.

    No, actually as a response to London being bombed to pieces, slum clearance and the construction of a number of new towns and the expansion of many others. London's population declined until the 80s, when it started to rise again.


    New towns were started in 1948. Coincidentally at the same time as mass immigration started - did people move there from poor areas attracting immigration? How long did it take for Brixton to become significantly non-white. The trendies might not like it but people moved out as they did not want to live next to non-whites.

    No, they moved out because they were offered much better homes in much nicer environments. But you will believe what you want to believe and never mind the facts. The metropolitan elite imported brown people to deliberately drive white people from their slums into homes with gardens, inside toilets, bedrooms and heating. It was a tragedy akin to ethnic cleansing.

  • That rolling blog has some great tweets about the pigdog's comments:


    Sarah Wollaston MP ✔ @drwollastonmp
    .@MarkReckless shows his true colours on repatriation, is that really what #RochesterandStrood want?


    George Galloway @georgegalloway
    If Reckless is elected tomorrow in Rochester he should be treated as a parliamentary leper. Well done Ms Khan for standing up to him.

    or this too

    Sophy Ridge ✔ @SophyRidgeSky
    Mark Reckless isn't coming to @38_degrees Rochester & Strood hustings, so he's been empty-chaired...
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited November 2014
    Itajai said:

    Itajai said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise.
    People have often come from other parts to leave the multicultural paradise (Essex/East London, Kent/SE London) and want to keep it that way. It's normally called white flight except by the BBC who refuses to recognise it.
    Multicultural paradises are often happy with immigration as they are peopled by immigrants and the trendy set.

    Out of interest, how do you explain the large movements of white Londoners out of London to Essex, Kent and Hertfordshire before there was any mass immigration? Were they anticipating the arrival of brown people? And is it not conceivable that may people leaving London now - including immigrants and their children - may be leveraging house prices to secure much bigger, better homes in much less built-up, more attractive parts of the country?


    Do we know when the movement to Essex, Kent and Herts started. How many MPs did they have prewar and after 1945. I suspect most of this growth was started after 1945. Possibly as a response to immigration.

    No, actually as a response to London being bombed to pieces, slum clearance and the construction of a number of new towns and the expansion of many others. London's population declined until the 80s, when it started to rise again.


    New towns were started in 1948. Coincidentally at the same time as mass immigration started - did people move there from poor areas attracting immigration? How long did it take for Brixton to become significantly non-white. The trendies might not like it but people moved out as they did not want to live next to non-whites.
    That will be the post-war slum clearance programs you are thinking of, when they declared large areas as unfit for human habitation and demolished and moved people out of London to better homes. The back to backs of the time were replaced by "modern" high density housing estates which ironically now have a lot of the problems of the original buildings.
  • BenM said:

    Itajai said:

    BenM said:

    In a clear example of how perverted our politics is, a constituency with barely any migrants is going to be won by a Party obsessed by immigration with two runner up Parties trying to outdo it on that self same irrelevant subject.

    And then the voters will complain their actual issues and problems aren't being dealt with.


    You'll find lots of constituencies with no immigration obsessed by immigration. Why? Because they don't want to become a multicultural paradise..
    Like Clacton?!

    The immigration Clacton has had is from UK councils dumping their poor there:

    "What marks seaside towns out is the availability of cheap accommodation. What once attracted holidaymakers now attracts local authorities placing children in care and ex-offenders. The B&Bs that once accommodated British holidaymakers start to house welfare tenants – not ideal for landlords, but better than facing months of vacancies. This has a cluster effect; poverty attracts poverty."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11151491/Clacton-by-election-The-Tories-cannot-fight-for-leafy-areas-and-forget-the-poor.html

    http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/publications/turning-the-tide-social-justice-in-five-seaside-towns

    Indeed - the poor, the dispossessed and immigrants tend to move into properties that are vacant and low rent. In other words, the folk that used to live in them have already fled.

    ??
    The B&Bs used to rent to tourists.

    No, they used to be filled with tourists. They no longer are, but the houses are still there and need to be filled if the landlords are to make a living. Likewise, when the metropolitan elite forced white people from their slums into homes in the new towns brown people moved into the sub-standard accommodation that was left behind.

  • Grandiose said:

    It would be a lot of work.

    Even the link you propose between the ECHR and EU (which, for the time being, I would argue is not quite accurate) is insufficient to answer the point, vis, leaving the EU would still leave us in the ECHR. Moreover even if we left the ECHR, we'd have the HRA, and if we abolished that, there would still be plenty of grounds of challenge that the method adopted for the task at hand was inappropriate.

    The 1998 Act would become unworkable if the United Kingdom denounced the Convention (not least the definition of "Convention Rights", ss.2, 10(1)(b) & 14-18, and schedules 3-4). The whole structure of the Act is predicated on continuing British membership of the Council of Europe. What the courts would do if the Act remained on the books but the Convention had ceased to apply to the UK is an open question.
This discussion has been closed.