Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harry Hayfield: The United Kingdom Independence Party are n

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Harry Hayfield: The United Kingdom Independence Party are not as United Kingdom as their name suggests

This article was started on the Friday after the local elections (May 10th 2013) and was prompted by a discussion on the BBC Northern Ireland edition of the Sunday Politics the previous weekend about the chances of a UKIP breakthrough in the Assembly.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    Thanks for this very thorough and interesting analysis Harry.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Great analysis - now back to bouncing on Balls...

  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Can Nigel Farage help Alex Salmond win Scottish independence by winning a Westminster by-election before the independence referendum?

    It would be interesting to see the regional breakdown of the UKIP vote within England, so that one can judge to what extent UKIP is a broad-based resurgence of English Nationalism, or otherwise.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Interesting analysis Henry - I suspect for more than a few UKIP members "UK" and "England" are synonyms.....
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Isn't this just a case of UKIP having competitors in the national identity vote in Scotland and Wales? I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP did just as well in South Wales as in England, and just as badly in North Wales as Scotland.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Harry's analysis forgets that whilst they are overrepresented in terms of MPs , the populations of Wales/Sco is but a mere fraction of the Uk.

  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    @antifrank

    FPT
    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    I suppose it's a matter of interpretation; you could argue that the figures show that UKIP do pretty well in all three of England, Wales and Scotland, albeit obviously with regional variations. Certainly their support in Wales and to an extent Scotland is at least respectable.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721

    Interesting analysis Henry - I suspect for more than a few UKIP members "UK" and "England" are synonyms.....

    I must admit I think of UKIP as more of an English party than a UK one. Each to their own but I wouldn't ever think to say I was British rather than English, unless it was part of a questionnaire where "English" wasn't an option.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    ... the split on the English right.

    What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,693
    I'm sure normal service will be resumed by the end of the week and we'll be back to everything being a disaster for Ed.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    tim said:
    The second part of the article from City AM you inexplicably overlooked:

    "The reason Labour should worry most about the rise of Ukip is simple: survey evidence consistently shows that Ukip’s appeal resonates most strongly with traditional “Old Labour” voters. It appeals to older, less skilled, blue collar men far more than to the young, highly-skilled middle classes. As the party has surged in the polls, these social divisions in Ukip’s support have grown ever wider. The impact this has had on Labour is clear already, when we look at the ground Labour has recovered since its low ebb in 2009. Labour’s popularity among the under 35s, university graduates and middle class professionals has surged, but the party has seen next to no recovery in its polling with working class voters or men, and it has gone backwards with pensioners. If this pattern persists, it will pose serious problems for Ed Miliband and his party over the next two years."

    http://www.cityam.com/debate/which-political-party-should-be-most-concerned-ukip-s-surge-popularity
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,693
    Looks like "Liberal Demorcrat" Ed Davey is demanding a press blackout on climate change skeptics because he doesn't agree with them.

    Once again the Liberal Demorcrat's behaviour seems to be the complete opposite of their name! :^O
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Socrates said:

    Isn't this just a case of UKIP having competitors in the national identity vote in Scotland and Wales? I wouldn't be surprised if UKIP did just as well in South Wales as in England, and just as badly in North Wales as Scotland.

    Well, sure, but it means that the reality is that they are espousing an English national identity, rather than a British one.

    I had a quick look at the regional breakdown of the 2009 Euro elections, and London was the only region with a lower percentage of the vote for UKIP than Wales. The Kingdom of Thames comes a step closer...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Have UKIP essentially become the ENP in all but name?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    edited June 2013

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    GIN1138 said:

    Looks like "Liberal Demorcrat" Ed Davey is demanding a press blackout on climate change skeptics because he doesn't agree with them.

    Once again the Liberal Demorcrat's behaviour seems to be the complete opposite of their name! :^O

    Davey seems to have been promoted above his abilities.
  • Does the existence and popularity of UKIP pose a threat to the arguments put forward by the SNP?

    The Nats are basically saying: 'Let us not be free. Let us be free of Westminster and instead become the minion of Brussels'.

    UKIP are saying: 'To be truly free you need to be truly independent.' I agree with that. If the Jocks want to be free then they should really go for it. Leave Westmister AND Brussels behind. Get themselves a currency (the Thistle?) and be masters of their own penury.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    ... the split on the English right.

    What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?

    UKIP are taking around three times as many votes from the Tories as they are from Labour, their voters dislike Cameron more than they dislike Miliband,and they are concentrated in the over 65's who also disapprove of Cameron more than they do Miliband.

    Keep quoting figures if it makes you happy, but Labour are no longer guaranteed the Northern Working Class vote.

    Brown's 'Bigoted' women (and men), have found a new party to support.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721

    Have UKIP essentially become the ENP in all but name?

    The connotations of "England" or "English" probably mean they won't go there.

    Farage thinks every country in Europe should leave the EU, so maybe the European Independence Party?!

    "The Independents" would be good but would be confusing on the ballot paper I suppose
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    isam said:

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?
    That might be because the way some people (although far from all) express themselves on this subject is bigoted.

    In your own words, why are you against the proposed changes to legislation? You must have some fairly well considered thoughts on the subject if you have come up with the opinion.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    @TheWatcher

    Keep quoting figures

    Polling vs PB Tory anecdote

    Genuine question, not aggressive demand...

    Was there any polling in 2011-12 on the mood and concerns of the country indicating that UKIP may go from 1% to 22% in the polls?

  • MikeSoleMikeSole Posts: 19
    Based on the above, this also means that UKIP must be polling more in England than their "averaged" UK opinion poll figures. More for the established mainstream parties to worry about in England.

    The SNP have been the "anti-establishment" party of Scotland for a while now though and Plaid in Wales, and well NI is a different scenario all together.

    All in all its got to mean at least a couple of extra % for UKIP in England when that is considered isn't it?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    Well consider me shocked

    Chelsea Football Club is delighted to announce the appointment of Jose Mourinho as First Team Manager.

    http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/3199099/title/mourinho-appointed
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    tim said:

    tim said:

    ... the split on the English right.

    What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?

    UKIP are taking around three times as many votes from the Tories as they are from Labour, their voters dislike Cameron more than they dislike Miliband,and they are concentrated in the over 65's who also disapprove of Cameron more than they do Miliband.

    Keep quoting figures if it makes you happy, but Labour are no longer guaranteed the Northern Working Class vote.

    Brown's 'Bigoted' women (and men), have found a new party to support.
    tim likes quoting the 2010 Labour vote figures because it conveniently ignores the million Labour voters who stayed at home (2 million vs 2001)....some of whom are never coming back....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    MikeSole said:

    Based on the above, this also means that UKIP must be polling more in England than their "averaged" UK opinion poll figures. More for the established mainstream parties to worry about in England.

    The SNP have been the "anti-establishment" party of Scotland for a while now though and Plaid in Wales, and well NI is a different scenario all together.

    All in all its got to mean at least a couple of extra % for UKIP in England when that is considered isn't it?

    Yup, is why I thought it maybe possible for the Lib Dems to make gains in Southern England at the expense of the Tory party
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    I see some of the more sensible Labourites are arguing for a referendum:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum

    Quite right too. How can Labour claim to be a one nation party or the voice of the people, when they're desperately trying to prevent such people having a voice so this nation can be told what to do by others?

    For that matter, the Lib Dems have to buckle at some point. They now have less than a third of the UKIP vote. Are they really prepared to put not consulting the public above their survival as a party?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Socrates said:

    I see some of the more sensible Labourites are arguing for a referendum:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum

    How can Labour claim to be a one nation party

    Well, having decided to bin Universal Benefits, they can't.

    Watch out Oldies, Ed Balls will be after your TV licences and prescriptions next.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    A number of Labour MPs are understood to be growing disillusioned with Miliband, with a YouGov poll last week suggesting 50% see him as out of touch, dithering, weak or unclear on what he stands for.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum

    So why not see if they can get him to make a u-turn on one of the only positions he's actually stated a view on, instead of standing back and watching the Tories scratch each other's eyes out. Genius.

    At least these people, if they actually exist, seem to have enough political sense not to let the bloke in charge tell anyone who they are.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    Woolwich and the dark underbelly of British Islam

    The EDL's dim, tattooed thugs can barely spell the word 'fascist' – so let's concentrate on what really threatens our way of life, argues Tom Harris MP.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10095899/Woolwich-and-the-dark-underbelly-of-British-Islam.html
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956

    A number of Labour MPs are understood to be growing disillusioned with Miliband, with a YouGov poll last week suggesting 50% see him as out of touch, dithering, weak or unclear on what he stands for.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum

    So why not see if they can get him to make a u-turn on one of the only positions he's actually stated a view on, instead of standing back and watching the Tories scratch each other's eyes out. Genius.

    At least these people, if they actually exist, seem to have enough political sense not to let the bloke in charge tell anyone who they are.

    I so misread that as yougov have polled Labour MPs and 50% of Labour MPs see him as out of touch, dithering, weak or unclear on what he stands for
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,261

    tim said:

    tim said:

    ... the split on the English right.

    What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?

    UKIP are taking around three times as many votes from the Tories as they are from Labour, their voters dislike Cameron more than they dislike Miliband,and they are concentrated in the over 65's who also disapprove of Cameron more than they do Miliband.

    Keep quoting figures if it makes you happy, but Labour are no longer guaranteed the Northern Working Class vote.
    Yes, annoying when people quote actual polling numbers, isn't it? Very boring of them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    Most interesting of all Ed Balls' announcement today

    Mansion Tax and 10p Tax

    “With family budgets under such pressure and living standards falling, surely it makes sense to introduce a mansion tax on properties worth over £2m to pay for a lower 10p starting rate of tax?”

    Which makes me wonder, could the Lib Dems and Labour strike a deal to enact this, during this parliament?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136


    Which makes me wonder, could the Lib Dems and Labour strike a deal to enact this, during this parliament?

    I doubt it - I'd have thought they'd both rather keep it for the manifesto than actually pass it...

    In any case the LibDems wouldn't want to set that precedent, in case the Tories joined up with the Labour authoritarians and got some of the stuff they've been blocking through.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    @TSE Not with the Coalition continuing. Tax-raising goes to the heart of a government. If either the Conservatives or the Lib Dems sought to impose a different tax strategy on the other by means of a different voting bloc, the other party would be pretty much obliged to bring the Coalition to an end.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742
    edited June 2013


    The EDL's dim, tattooed thugs can barely spell the word 'fascist' – so let's concentrate on what really threatens our way of life, argues Tom Harris MP.

    He's obviously had the memo from Blair Towers, though tbf Tom can probably trot out whatever Tony's current line is in his sleep.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited June 2013
    EiT/Antifrank - You two are right but it would make for one hell of a differentiation strategy and could lead to the Lib Dems getting the back Labour tactical voters in Lib Dem/Tory marginals.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?
    That might be because the way some people (although far from all) express themselves on this subject is bigoted.

    In your own words, why are you against the proposed changes to legislation? You must have some fairly well considered thoughts on the subject if you have come up with the opinion.
    On the one hand it doesn't really affect me or matter to me at all. I'm not massively against it in the way I am against Britain being in the EU or mass immigration. If UKIP were in favour of gay marriage, I would still vote for them without hesitation. In one way it fits in with people being able to do whatever they want, which is how I used to think until recently.

    If pushed I would say my reasons for being pro traditional marriage, is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married, and so marriage between these people should be privileged. Ok, some couples adopt, some don't want children, but they are the minority and no system is perfect. I thought civil partnerships were meant to be an official way of gay people declaring their love, having a ceremony and sorting out the legal loopholes.

    So really I would say that it is because it takes the privilege away from biological parents who are married that I am against it, rather than any disrespect for the love a gay couple have for each other which I would say is obviously equal to that of heterosexuals.

    Secondly, I am suspicious of the motivation of many people that support gay marriage. Marriage between men and women has been falling rapidly for decades. Many who are pro gay marriage are the type that used to say marriage was a dated sexist arrangement, lived with their "partners", weren't religious, and couldn't care less about traditional marriage in church until they realised how much it would wind up right wing people if gay people could do it as well.

    ...and it gave them a chance to call these people bigots.

    I don't remember gay marriage being a big deal to anyone until 18 months or so ago. In 2010-2011 I studied Humanities at Brighton University, possibly the most right on, LGBT friendly place on earth where blaming white, straight men for society's ills was the order of the day and nobody once mentioned it.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Woolwich and the dark underbelly of British Islam

    The EDL's dim, tattooed thugs can barely spell the word 'fascist' – so let's concentrate on what really threatens our way of life, argues Tom Harris MP.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10095899/Woolwich-and-the-dark-underbelly-of-British-Islam.html

    There are people living in this country who believe as an article of faith that it is acceptable, even necessary, to kill citizens of any country which has dared to attack a Muslim country. They believe that the kaffir, as they insultingly refer to non-believers, are of less value to their God than Muslims. They despise a culture which extends equal rights to women and gays, and scorn those women who dare to dress “immodestly” as whores.

    We need to be careful to distinguish between different types of beliefs. The first sentence refers to a view that is in line with extrajudicial violence. This view is held by less than 10% of British Muslims, and not a much larger share worldwide. Governments of both stripes have also taken a lot of action on this.

    However, the latter views are the ones that need a lot more focus, because they are much more widely held and yet not counted as "extremist" because they are not connected to terrorism. This needs to change. For example, very large majorities of Pakistanis believe some very nasty positions, which makes it likely that many of the large number of new immigrants to the UK from Pakistan have similar views. We need to make more of an effort to screen such people out, while, of course, not unfairly discriminating against the decent Muslims that are not of such ideology.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    A number of Labour MPs are understood to be growing disillusioned with Miliband, with a YouGov poll last week suggesting 50% see him as out of touch, dithering, weak or unclear on what he stands for.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum

    So why not see if they can get him to make a u-turn on one of the only positions he's actually stated a view on, instead of standing back and watching the Tories scratch each other's eyes out. Genius.

    At least these people, if they actually exist, seem to have enough political sense not to let the bloke in charge tell anyone who they are.
    I so misread that as yougov have polled Labour MPs and 50% of Labour MPs see him as out of touch, dithering, weak or unclear on what he stands for

    To be fair, it is very badly written - your interpretation was the natural reading of the sentence
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956


    The EDL's dim, tattooed thugs can barely spell the word 'fascist' – so let's concentrate on what really threatens our way of life, argues Tom Harris MP.

    He's obviously had the memo from Blair Towers, though tbf Tom can probably trot out whatever Tony's current line is in his sleep.

    There was a time when I had trouble spelling fascist.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Most interesting of all Ed Balls' announcement today

    Mansion Tax and 10p Tax

    “With family budgets under such pressure and living standards falling, surely it makes sense to introduce a mansion tax on properties worth over £2m to pay for a lower 10p starting rate of tax?”

    Which makes me wonder, could the Lib Dems and Labour strike a deal to enact this, during this parliament?

    But that would mean the government losing vote on a money bill.

    Nick Palmer would know better than me - think money bills used to be automatic matters of confidence, but I suspect the government would need to turn round and make it an issue of confidence in any event. If the government can't control supply, then it doesn't command the confidence of the house almost by definition
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262

    tim said:

    tim said:

    ... the split on the English right.

    What, all those voters in the Labour stronghold of Rawmarsh, Rotherham?

    UKIP are taking around three times as many votes from the Tories as they are from Labour, their voters dislike Cameron more than they dislike Miliband,and they are concentrated in the over 65's who also disapprove of Cameron more than they do Miliband.

    Keep quoting figures if it makes you happy, but Labour are no longer guaranteed the Northern Working Class vote.
    Yes, annoying when people quote actual polling numbers, isn't it? Very boring of them.
    That shock seat loss to UKIP must have been an anecdote, Nick.

    Real voting figures versus polling.

    Terribly dull.

  • isamisam Posts: 40,721
    edited June 2013

    Woolwich and the dark underbelly of British Islam

    The EDL's dim, tattooed thugs can barely spell the word 'fascist' – so let's concentrate on what really threatens our way of life, argues Tom Harris MP.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10095899/Woolwich-and-the-dark-underbelly-of-British-Islam.html

    If more Labour MPs spoke like that I reckon The Sun would endorse them, they would get a boost in the polls and possibly win a majority.



  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,742


    There was a time when I had trouble spelling fascist.

    Cybernats learn it at their mother's knee.

    'Mummy, what's that word that Lord Foulkes keeps calling me?'

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?
    That might be because the way some people (although far from all) express themselves on this subject is bigoted.

    In your own words, why are you against the proposed changes to legislation? You must have some fairly well considered thoughts on the subject if you have come up with the opinion.
    On the one hand it doesn't really affect me or matter to me at all. I'm not massively against it in the way I am against Britain being in the EU or mass immigration. If UKIP were in favour of gay marriage, I would still vote for them without hesitation. In one way it fits in with people being able to do whatever they want, which is how I used to think until recently.

    If pushed I would say my reasons for being pro traditional marriage, is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married, and so marriage between these people should be privileged. Ok, some couples adopt, some don't want children, but they are the minority and no system is perfect. I thought civil partnerships were meant to be an official way of gay people declaring their love, having a ceremony and sorting out the legal loopholes.

    So really I would say that it is because it takes the privilege away from biological parents who are married that I am against it, rather than any disrespect for the love a gay couple have for each other which I would say is obviously equal to that of heterosexuals.

    Secondly, I am suspicious of the motivation of many people that support gay marriage. Marriage between men and women has been falling rapidly for decades. Many who are pro gay marriage are the type that used to say marriage was a dated sexist arrangement, lived with their "partners", weren't religious, and couldn't care less about traditional marriage in church until they realised how much it would wind up right wing people if gay people could do it as well.

    ...and it gave them a chance to call these people bigots.

    I don't remember gay marriage being a big deal to anyone until 18 months or so ago. In 2010-2011 I studied Humanities at Brighton University, possibly the most right on, LGBT friendly place on earth where blaming white, straight men for society's ills was the order of the day and nobody once mentioned it.
    Thanks for a well considered reply, even if I don't agree with some of it. ;-)

    For one thing, your statement:
    "is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married"

    I'm not sure that fair proof can have been obtained for this when compared to the more recent M+M and F+F parenting arrangements which gave not really had time to work yet, although I could be wrong.

    I went on a journey on this issue - initially I was (like you I think) mildly against the legislation, but it was not an issue that was in any way a dealbreaker for me. But as I read up more on it, and talked to people, I changed my view to be in favour. In fact, I have moved so far that I'm quite passionately in favour, even though it effects me not one jot.

    At the end of the day I cannot see why two non-related people who are ready to commit long-term to each other, should not be treated by the law in the same way as any other two people willing to make the same commitment.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited June 2013


    There was a time when I had trouble spelling fascist.

    Cybernats learn it at their mother's knee.

    'Mummy, what's that word that Lord Foulkes keeps calling me?'

    Can I enact Godwin's law and point out, that fascists have a history of punching/attacking police officers?

    *Innocent face*
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited June 2013
    Oddly it seems to be tim who is ignoring the polling data on UKIP eating into Labour's support.

    For anyone who missed it, the article by Rob Ford and Matthew Goodwin (who know more about this subject than almost anyone else) at the weekend is a must-read:

    It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right: its biggest support is from Labour's traditional – and disaffected – base

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband

    Although it's not particularly explicit in that article, Dr Ford has told me in an email that he thinks that the ex-Tory UKIP supporters are more likely to return to the Tories at the GE than ex-Labour UKIP supporters are to return to Labour.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited June 2013

    Oddly it seems to be tim who is ignoring the polling data on UKIP eating into Labour's support.

    For anyone who missed it, the article by Rob Ford and Matthew Goodwin (who know more about this subject than almost anyone else) at the weekend is a must-read:

    It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right: its biggest support is from Labour's traditional – and disaffected – base

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband

    Although it's not particularly explicit in that article, Dr Ford has told me in an email that he thinks that the ex-Tory UKIP supporters are more likely to return to the Tories at the GE than ex-Labour UKIP supporters are to return to Labour.

    Dr Ford wrote it in the piece linked to below

    There is reason for Labour to worry on this front, as previous research suggests that in the last election cycle, “strategic defectors” who switched to UKIP at mid-term and then return at the general election are often more middle class and Conservative leaners than core UKIP loyalists, who are often poorer and more working class. If this pattern repeats itself in 2015, the Conservatives may recover some of their lost support while Labour voters tempted by Farage may prove harder to win back.

    http://nottspolitics.org/2013/06/03/polling-observatory-25-ukip-surge-but-who-do-they-hurt/
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Does Nick Robinson read PB????

    I said last night that Labour's Winter Fuel change was less than one thousandth of the (current) deficit.

    Guess what - Nick Robinson uses exactly the same stat!!!! (He actually says not much more than one thousandth of deficit in 2015).
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?
    That might be because the way some people (although far from all) express themselves on this subject is bigoted.

    In your own words, why are you against the proposed changes to legislation? You must have some fairly well considered thoughts on the subject if you have come up with the opinion.
    On the one hand it doesn't really affect me or matter to me at all. I'm not massively against it in the way I am against Britain being in the EU or mass immigration. If UKIP were in favour of gay marriage, I would still vote for them without hesitation. In one way it fits in with people being able to do whatever they want, which is how I used to think until recently.

    If pushed I would say my reasons for being pro traditional marriage, is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married, and so marriage between these people should be privileged. Ok, some couples adopt, some don't want children, but they are the minority and no system is perfect. I thought civil partnerships were meant to be an official way of gay people declaring their love, having a ceremony and sorting out the legal loopholes.

    So really I would say that it is because it takes the privilege away from biological parents who are married that I am against it, rather than any disrespect for the love a gay couple have for each other which I would say is obviously equal to that of heterosexuals.

    Secondly, I am suspicious of the motivation of many people that support gay marriage. Marriage between men and women has been falling rapidly for decades. Many who are pro gay marriage are the type that used to say marriage was a dated sexist arrangement, lived with their "partners", weren't religious, and couldn't care less about traditional marriage in church until they realised how much it would wind up right wing people if gay people could do it as well.

    ...and it gave them a chance to call these people bigots.

    I don't remember gay marriage being a big deal to anyone until 18 months or so ago. In 2010-2011 I studied Humanities at Brighton University, possibly the most right on, LGBT friendly place on earth where blaming white, straight men for society's ills was the order of the day and nobody once mentioned it.
    Thanks for a well considered reply, even if I don't agree with some of it. ;-)

    For one thing, your statement:
    "is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married"

    I'm not sure that fair proof can have been obtained for this when compared to the more recent M+M and F+F parenting arrangements which gave not really had time to work yet, although I could be wrong.

    I went on a journey on this issue - initially I was (like you I think) mildly against the legislation, but it was not an issue that was in any way a dealbreaker for me. But as I read up more on it, and talked to people, I changed my view to be in favour. In fact, I have moved so far that I'm quite passionately in favour, even though it effects me not one jot.

    At the end of the day I cannot see why two non-related people who are ready to commit long-term to each other, should not be treated by the law in the same way as any other two people willing to make the same commitment.
    My compromise would be for all partnerships to be recognised in the eyes of the law by a civic registry office type contract that would be called civil partnership, and have a religious ceremony in church if they wanted (and if the church would have them) which they could call marriage.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    MikeL said:

    Does Nick Robinson read PB????

    I said last night that Labour's Winter Fuel change was less than one thousandth of the (current) deficit.

    Guess what - Nick Robinson uses exactly the same stat!!!! (He actually says not much more than one thousandth of deficit in 2015).

    Adam Boulton reads PB for damn sure, he used some of the figures I published last week in his piece for the Sunday Times yesterday.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    'Very large majorities of Pakistanis believe some very nasty positions, which makes it likely that many of the large number of new immigrants to the UK from Pakistan have similar views'.

    I want to believe you Socrates, I really do, but I don't think we can infer one from the other without solid research and/or polling (especially as the torch passes from one generation to the next).

  • It seems Farage has proposed recall elections for MPs if a sufficiently large petition from within their constituency sign up for it.

    Good. This would do more than all the HoC regulations and self administered 'discipline' that politicos talk about. Get caught scamming or being an utter cnut and you might lose your lovely seat.

    Why can't members of the established political class propose sensible measures like this that give more power to the people and less to the elites? (How stupid a question is that!)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349

    RN,

    My anecdotal evidence also suggests that more Labour than Tory voters are defecting to UKIP, but that might be because I know more labour voters in this part of the country. And they may well stay "defected".

    Do my anecdotes trump tim's wishful thinking?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited June 2013

    Under Labour a person living in a £3M villa in Spain will get no winter fuel benefit but pay no mansion tax.

    A person in a £2 M house in London will pay mansion tax and may not get the winter fuel allowance - depends on their income.

    So under Labour it is best to flee the country if you own a big house.

    Meanwhile the other 99.99% of public spending will be unchanged.

    Great stuff.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Oddly it seems to be tim who is ignoring the polling data on UKIP eating into Labour's support.

    I read last week that UKIP were going to come out with some new media stuff (broadcast?) deliberately targeted at labour voters, has it materialised?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?
    That might be because the way some people (although far from all) express themselves on this subject is bigoted.

    In your own words, why are you against the proposed changes to legislation? You must have some fairly well considered thoughts on the subject if you have come up with the opinion.
    On the one hand it doesn't really affect me or matter to me at all. I'm not massively against it in the way I am against Britain being in the EU or mass immigration. If UKIP were in favour of gay marriage, I would still vote for them without hesitation. In one way it fits in with people being able to do whatever they want, which is how I used to think until recently.

    If pushed I would say my reasons for being pro traditional marriage, is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married, and so marriage between these people should be privileged. Ok, some couples adopt, some don't want children, but they are the minority and no system is perfect. I thought civil partnerships were meant to be an official way of gay people declaring their love, having a ceremony and sorting out the legal loopholes.

    So really I would say that it is because it takes the privilege away from biological parents who are married that I am against it, rather than any disrespect for the love a gay couple have for each other which I would say is obviously equal to that of heterosexuals.

    Secondly, I am suspicious of the motivation of many people that support gay marriage. Marriage between men and women has been falling rapidly for decades. Many who are pro gay marriage are the type that used to say marriage was a dated sexist arrangement, lived with their "partners", weren't religious, and couldn't care less about traditional marriage in church until they realised how much it would wind up right wing people if gay people could do it as well.

    ...and it gave them a chance to call these people bigots.

    I don't remember gay marriage being a big deal to anyone until 18 months or so ago. In 2010-2011 I studied Humanities at Brighton University, possibly the most right on, LGBT friendly place on earth where blaming white, straight men for society's ills was the order of the day and nobody once mentioned it.
    Thanks for a well considered reply, even if I don't agree with some of it. ;-)

    For one thing, your statement:
    "is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married"

    I'm not sure that fair proof can have been obtained for this when compared to the more recent M+M and F+F parenting arrangements which gave not really had time to work yet, although I could be wrong.

    I went on a journey on this issue - initially I was (like you I think) mildly against the legislation, but it was not an issue that was in any way a dealbreaker for me. But as I read up more on it, and talked to people, I changed my view to be in favour. In fact, I have moved so far that I'm quite passionately in favour, even though it effects me not one jot.

    At the end of the day I cannot see why two non-related people who are ready to commit long-term to each other, should not be treated by the law in the same way as any other two people willing to make the same commitment.
    My compromise would be for all partnerships to be recognised in the eyes of the law by a civic registry office type contract that would be called civil partnership, and have a religious ceremony in church if they wanted (and if the church would have them) which they could call marriage.
    So it is the religious aspect that matters to you: a registry office style civil partnership arrangement, and a religious ceremony called marriage?

    When Mrs J and I got married on HMS Warrior, it was a registry office affair and was not in the least way religious (we decided that a religious ceremony between a Turkish atheist and a British agnostic would be hypocritical). Under such an arrangement, would we be 'married'?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,721

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    @antifrank

    FPT

    antifrank said:

    isam said:

    Gosh! I think I've just seen a member of the liberal metropolitan elite transform into a troll!

    When responding to a post that includes the phrase “inbred six-fingered scribble” about something as banal as punctuation, I think I’m allowed to tweak tails in turn. One thing is obvious: UKIPpers don't like it up 'em (no doubt that's why they're so hostile to gay marriage).

    Using the word "hostile" to describe the attitude of people that aren't in favour of a change that you want seems typical of how "progressives" think.

    The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it.
    "The hostility, if there is any, over the gay marriage proposals certainly does not come from those opposed to it."

    Have you ever considered going onto the stage as part of a comedy routine?
    Not really.

    Ian Paisley on QT was vilified for being opposed to gay marriage (or in favour of traditional marriage to put it a less negative way), both on the show and on here. I cant think of anyone who has said they are against it not being called a "bigot" or some other insulting term. Are there examples of hostility from the anti gay marriage section of society against those who are in favour? Or is being against it in itself enough to merit the word "hostile"?
    That might be because the way some people (although far from all) express themselves on this subject is bigoted.

    In your own words, why are you against the proposed changes to legislation? You must have some fairly well considered thoughts on the subject if you have come up with the opinion.
    On the one hand it doesn't really affect me or matter to me at all. I'm not massively against it in the way I am against Britain being in the EU or mass immigration. If UKIP were in favour of gay marriage, I would still vote for them without hesitation. In one way it fits in with people being able to do whatever they want, which is how I used to think until recently.

    If pushed I would say my reasons for being pro traditional marriage, is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married, and so marriage between these people should be privileged. Ok, some couples adopt, some don't want children, but they are the minority and no system is perfect. I thought civil partnerships were meant to be an official way of gay people declaring their love, having a ceremony and sorting out the legal loopholes.

    So really I would say that it is because it takes the privilege away from biological parents who are married that I am against it, rather than any disrespect for the love a gay couple have for each other which I would say is obviously equal to that of heterosexuals.

    Secondly, I am suspicious of the motivation of many people that support gay marriage. Marriage between men and women has been falling rapidly for decades. Many who are pro gay marriage are the type that used to say marriage was a dated sexist arrangement, lived with their "partners", weren't religious, and couldn't care less about traditional marriage in church until they realised how much it would wind up right wing people if gay people could do it as well.

    ...and it gave them a chance to call these people bigots.

    I don't remember gay marriage being a big deal to anyone until 18 months or so ago. In 2010-2011 I studied Humanities at Brighton University, possibly the most right on, LGBT friendly place on earth where blaming white, straight men for society's ills was the order of the day and nobody once mentioned it.
    Thanks for a well considered reply, even if I don't agree with some of it. ;-)

    For one thing, your statement:
    "is that it is proven to be the best arrangement for bringing up children for the biological Mum and Dad to be married"

    I'm not sure that fair proof can have been obtained for this when compared to the more recent M+M and F+F parenting arrangements which gave not really had time to work yet, although I could be wrong.

    I went on a journey on this issue - initially I was (like you I think) mildly against the legislation, but it was not an issue that was in any way a dealbreaker for me. But as I read up more on it, and talked to people, I changed my view to be in favour. In fact, I have moved so far that I'm quite passionately in favour, even though it effects me not one jot.

    At the end of the day I cannot see why two non-related people who are ready to commit long-term to each other, should not be treated by the law in the same way as any other two people willing to make the same commitment.
    My compromise would be for all partnerships to be recognised in the eyes of the law by a civic registry office type contract that would be called civil partnership, and have a religious ceremony in church if they wanted (and if the church would have them) which they could call marriage.
    So it is the religious aspect that matters to you: a registry office style civil partnership arrangement, and a religious ceremony called marriage?

    When Mrs J and I got married on HMS Warrior, it was a registry office affair and was not in the least way religious (we decided that a religious ceremony between a Turkish atheist and a British agnostic would be hypocritical). Under such an arrangement, would we be 'married'?
    You'd be in a civil partnership. It wouldn't mean you loved each other any less. It would be hypocritical for anyone who didn't believe in God to make religious vows in Church wouldn't it?
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    Which polling data am I ignoring?

    1) The fact that the Labour vote share has fallen slightly more than the Conservative vote share in opinion polls since the start of the year, as UKIP's support has grown

    2) Eastleigh, where UKIP ate into the LibDem vote share to almost exactly the same extent as into the Tory vote share

    3) South Shields, Middlesbrough. Ain't no Tories there to eat into. (Not quite true, but you get the gist)

    The big picture is that UKIP took the first part of its support from disaffected Tories. It continues to do so, but the recent surge has been much more even in its effect on the two main parties, and to an extent on the LibDems.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited June 2013
    Robert Maurice Jay QC will make his affirmations tomorrow, having been appointed a Puisne Judge of the High Court of Justice (QBD), in the room of Roderick Evans J, retired. If Leveson II ever happens, it will need a new counsel to the inquiry, as well as (perhaps) a new chairman.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2013
    The good news overlooked in the previous thread

    There was so much good news on the economy in the last thread that I was reluctant to join the party for fear that an independent reader might start considering PB to be Tory biased.

    Even SeanT was praising the work of the Downing Street elite.

    Still we seem to have missed the release of this month's Reed's Job Index of the Labour market.

    After a little flatlining in March and April, employment is looking as though it is about to resume its upward climb.

    The UK job market is at it healthiest since 2008 following a record surge in new positions across all sectors, according to a report by recruitment firm Reed.

    Reed's Job Index, which is compiled using data from over 10,000 employers, said there were 8% more job opportunities on offer in May than in April. Annually, growth in new positions is currently over 17%.

    The report said there were more opportunities for jobseekers in over 90% of the UK’s employment sectors last month compared with April, with one in four sectors making over 10% more jobs available.

    Reed said the rise in new positions was also seen in all parts of the UK rather than just London and the South East.


    So prospects up in almost all sectors and all regions of the UK.

    Well that really is good news. Even tim and Ben will like that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715

    Socrates said:

    I see some of the more sensible Labourites are arguing for a referendum:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/02/labour-mps-ed-miliband-eu-referendum

    How can Labour claim to be a one nation party

    Well, having decided to bin Universal Benefits, they can't.

    Watch out Oldies, Ed Balls will be after your TV licences and prescriptions next.
    I've only my friends and neighbours to use as a focus group, but most of us seem to feel we could do without a tax-free heating allowance, and if we had to pay £5-£10 for a bus pass that would be money well spent. However, we are a relatively well off group ..... retired health and social care professionals, teachers and so on.
    We recognise that for many of our fellow OAP's that wouldn't apply.

    What we do wonder is whether before OAPs will not get bus passes until they actually draw their pensions, rather than, as now, getting them at 60.

    Big advantage of bus passes of course that, because they are used, buses are considerably fuller than they would be otherwise during the day, and therefore are available for the rest of the community.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    You want to use those figure to prove your point?

    Yes I do. I'm surprised you can't see that it jumps out of the page.

    Here's a hint: What has Nick Palmer been saying about LibDem defectors to Labour?
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Obviously I agree with Harry that UKIP are an English rather than UK party, but there are a couple of odd comments in the piece -

    "Which naturally poses the question, is England more anti the establishment than Wales or Scotland? Looking at the devolved Assembly votes since 1999, it would appear to be that way."

    What on Earth is "anti-establishment" about UKIP? They're just more of the same right-of-centre mush that passes for the centre of gravity at Westminster. In 2011, Scotland elected a majority government that wants independence and the removal of inhuman weapons from our shores. I'd say that's pretty anti-establishment by any standards.

    And on a point of pedantry, Scotland has a parliament not an assembly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    tim said:

    Oddly it seems to be tim who is ignoring the polling data on UKIP eating into Labour's support.

    For anyone who missed it, the article by Rob Ford and Matthew Goodwin (who know more about this subject than almost anyone else) at the weekend is a must-read:

    It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right: its biggest support is from Labour's traditional – and disaffected – base

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband

    Although it's not particularly explicit in that article, Dr Ford has told me in an email that he thinks that the ex-Tory UKIP supporters are more likely to return to the Tories at the GE than ex-Labour UKIP supporters are to return to Labour.

    2010 Labour
    Your comfort blanket - what about the 2 million 2001 Labour or million 2005 Labour?

    The fact that you are not losing the die-in-the-ditch loyalists of 2010 seems to provide you with inordinate reassurance. Planning on not winning again?

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Avery it is not good news for all - think of our Teutonic cousins..

    "The IMF said falling business investment and the eurozone's ongoing recession, which have hampered German growth, meant the economy would grow by just 0.3pc this year, compared with an April estimate of 0.6pc."

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    What could possibly go wrong?

    Wetherspoon's plans to open first motorway service station PUB that will serve people 24 hours a day

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335001/Wetherspoons-plans-open-24-hour-motorway-service-station-PUB.html
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Wetherspoon's plans to open first motorway service station PUB that will serve people 24 hours a day

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335001/Wetherspoons-plans-open-24-hour-motorway-service-station-PUB.html

    The have pubs in airports - as long as the designated driver/pilot doesn't get bevvied up there shouldn't be too many problems.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Planning on not winning again?

    You make an important point. The conservatives are all too aware of the UKIP threat. Indeed, I wouldn;t be surprised if Dave spends more time worrying about how to fix Nige than he does Ed.

    Labour by contrast are still a bit complacent about the potential UKIP threat.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited June 2013

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Wetherspoon's plans to open first motorway service station PUB that will serve people 24 hours a day

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335001/Wetherspoons-plans-open-24-hour-motorway-service-station-PUB.html

    The horror. Presumably they'll work in the same way as existing pubs with vehicular access and car parks, even the ones near motorway junctions. Passengers get slammed, driver stays under the limit or loses his license.

    It's no worse than service stations selling alcohol.

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Patrick -

    "Does the existence and popularity of UKIP pose a threat to the arguments put forward by the SNP?"

    A question for the Rentoul series.

    "The Nats are basically saying: 'Let us not be free. Let us be free of Westminster and instead become the minion of Brussels'."

    Patrick, if you seriously think that being a member of the EU involves being "minions", and given that the UK is currently a member of the EU, in what sense would Scotland be "becoming" a minion simply by remaining in the EU after independence?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    taffys said:

    Planning on not winning again?

    You make an important point. The conservatives are all too aware of the UKIP threat. Indeed, I wouldn;t be surprised if Dave spends more time worrying about how to fix Nige than he does Ed.

    Labour by contrast are still a bit complacent about the potential UKIP threat.

    Judging by tim's "nailed on" posts one would think Labour are delighted about Ukip and think it is the key to them winning the next election with no policies - what could possibly go wrong ?
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    You want to use those figure to prove your point?

    Yes I do. I'm surprised you can't see that it jumps out of the page.

    Here's a hint: What has Nick Palmer been saying about LibDem defectors to Labour?

    We've had one by election in a Con/Lab marginal

    Corby

    Lab +10
    Con -15
    LD-10
    UKIP +15
    Corby and Mensch. Special case. Tories were never going to do well in that constituency after Louise's decades of selfless hard work and effort in the seat.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited June 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Oddly it seems to be tim who is ignoring the polling data on UKIP eating into Labour's support.

    For anyone who missed it, the article by Rob Ford and Matthew Goodwin (who know more about this subject than almost anyone else) at the weekend is a must-read:

    It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right: its biggest support is from Labour's traditional – and disaffected – base

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband

    Although it's not particularly explicit in that article, Dr Ford has told me in an email that he thinks that the ex-Tory UKIP supporters are more likely to return to the Tories at the GE than ex-Labour UKIP supporters are to return to Labour.

    2010 Labour
    Your comfort blanket - what about the 2 million 2001 Labour or million 2005 Labour?

    The fact that you are not losing the die-in-the-ditch loyalists of 2010 seems to provide you with inordinate reassurance. Planning on not winning again?


    Lab 37.7%
    Con 28.1%
    LD 8%
    UKIP 14.4%

    http://nottspolitics.org/2013/06/03/polling-observatory-25-ukip-surge-but-who-do-they-hurt/

    Can you see there who has lost votes since 2010?

    Tell me you read this before posting:

    "Labour have little to cheer, though, as their support has also dropped substantially for the third month running, down 0.7 percentage points to 37.7%. While Ed Miliband and his party retain a healthy lead over the Conservatives, their popularity is also now close to the lowest seen since Miliband took over the leadership. Recent polling showing voters comparing Miliband’s leadership unfavourably to that of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will hand further ammunition to critics arguing that Labour’s position remains vulnerable.

    There is reason for Labour to worry on this front, as previous research suggests that in the last election cycle, “strategic defectors” who switched to UKIP at mid-term and then return at the general election are often more middle class and Conservative leaners than core UKIP loyalists, who are often poorer and more working class. If this pattern repeats itself in 2015, the Conservatives may recover some of their lost support while Labour voters tempted by Farage may prove harder to win back."
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    edited June 2013

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Wetherspoon's plans to open first motorway service station PUB that will serve people 24 hours a day

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335001/Wetherspoons-plans-open-24-hour-motorway-service-station-PUB.html

    The horror. Presumably they'll work the same way as existing pubs with vehicular access and car parks.

    It's no worse than service stations selling alcohol.

    If there anything like the prices that service stations charges for food and drink, no one will be able to afford to buy any alcoholic drink from the pub.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.

    In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Can you see there who has lost votes since 2010?

    Tim I think you're probably right, but that's up to now.

    Trouble is, UKIP hasn't really yet started its promised offensive on labour voters, whilst the tories will probably get swing back of some sort...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    Planning on not winning again?

    You make an important point. The conservatives are all too aware of the UKIP threat. Indeed, I wouldn;t be surprised if Dave spends more time worrying about how to fix Nige than he does Ed.

    Labour by contrast are still a bit complacent about the potential UKIP threat.

    Judging by tim's "nailed on" posts one would think Labour are delighted about Ukip and think it is the key to them winning the next election with no policies - what could possibly go wrong ?

    In the bizarre world of the PB Tory the fact that Cameron and Osborne have split the right wing vote is bad for Labour.
    Welcome to DanHodges.com
    Won't matter in the 2014 Euro elections - the blue + purple total is growing.
  • The provincial Mr Farage gets more votes in the provinces? The only party leader not part of the London metropolitan elite does disproportionally worse in London? No surprises so far. And UKIP did much better in some English localities than others on May 2nd.

    This is very good news for UKIP. FPTP operates against the interests of parties with a very even level of support throughout the country. I used to think that for UKIP to get 1 or 2 seats would be a great performance at the 2015 GE. But maybe, for no reason that is easy to pinpoint, UKIP's voters are nowhere near as evenly distributed as is commonly thought.

    The LDs will win 40 seats, with 10% of the vote in 2015 (approx). UKIP could have won 0 seats with 20% of the vote. But as soon as 'hotspots' of UKIP support are identified, voting UKIP no longer seems to be a wasted vote. And UKIP intend to target resources much more in 2015. Donors appear for parties doing well.

    And the sun is shining.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Oddly it seems to be tim who is ignoring the polling data on UKIP eating into Labour's support.

    For anyone who missed it, the article by Rob Ford and Matthew Goodwin (who know more about this subject than almost anyone else) at the weekend is a must-read:

    It's a misconception that Ukip draws from the right: its biggest support is from Labour's traditional – and disaffected – base

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/ukip-gunning-labour-ed-miliband

    Although it's not particularly explicit in that article, Dr Ford has told me in an email that he thinks that the ex-Tory UKIP supporters are more likely to return to the Tories at the GE than ex-Labour UKIP supporters are to return to Labour.

    That is a super article. Thanks very much for posting the link.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Battenburg alliance of lefty mongs plan to vote for windmill only electricity

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10096331/Coalition-braced-for-MPs-rebellion-over-new-2030-carbon-energy-target.html

    "MPs will vote on Tuesday on whether to introduce an amendment to the Energy Bill which would commit the UK to have a “near carbon-free power sector” by 2030

    The MPs’ amendment would bring in the requirement almost immediately, whereas the Government is proposing separately to agree the target in 2016.

    The backbench amendment would remove coal-fire and gas-fired power stations from their network"
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    @tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.

    In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.

    Richard.

    The key point you have made is that Tories travel to UKIP on return tickets. Labour voters emigrate.

    tim will never understand this.

  • Maude is saying the government has saved 10 billion quid from the cost of the civil service:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334663/Coalition-cuts-save-10bn-12-months-Amount-equivalent-nearly-600-working-household-country.html

    Talks about managing public money like a FTSE100 company does. Wow. Good news if true. There is stil lan astonishing amount of fat in the system. To find 10 bn in the first place is a savage indictment of the way governments manage of taxes.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    taffys said:

    Trouble is, UKIP hasn't really yet started its promised offensive on labour voters, whilst the tories will probably get swing back of some sort...

    Here's the first salvo:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn7Y-BSh51o&feature=player_embedded
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    AveryLP said:

    @tim - Yes, but I note that you are quick to point to constituency-specific factors in Eastleigh, but oddly not in Corby.

    In any case, I think you've slightly missed the point. It's the UKIP surge over the past few months which has started to hit Labour. Middlesbrough and Rotherham showed the early stages of the effect, but it's since the start of 2013 that the shift has been gathering momentum.

    Richard.

    The key point you have made is that Tories travel to UKIP on return tickets. Labour voters emigrate.

    tim will never understand this.

    Still, Ed's nailed on the oldie vote with his raid on bus passes.

    Today, it's Alan Sugar losing his free seat on the 22.

    Tomorrow it's Doris and Sid Bloggs paying on the 78, when the sums are Ballsed up.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    tim said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    Planning on not winning again?

    You make an important point. The conservatives are all too aware of the UKIP threat. Indeed, I wouldn;t be surprised if Dave spends more time worrying about how to fix Nige than he does Ed.

    Labour by contrast are still a bit complacent about the potential UKIP threat.

    Judging by tim's "nailed on" posts one would think Labour are delighted about Ukip and think it is the key to them winning the next election with no policies - what could possibly go wrong ?

    In the bizarre world of the PB Tory the fact that Cameron and Osborne have split the right wing vote is bad for Labour.
    Welcome to DanHodges.com
    Won't matter in the 2014 Euro elections - the blue + purple total is growing.
    Meanwhile in the real world

    2009 Con +UKIP 44.2%

    This month Con +UKIP 42.5%



    YouGov in the Sunday Times had Con+ Ukip on 45%
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Here's the first salvo

    Thanks Carlotta - I heard they were planning something....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Speculating about which UKIP supporters will or won't stay loyal is fairly futile at present.

    If I had to guess, I would guess that we would be discussing in 2015 who the relatively few remaining UKIP diehards had been drawn from. UKIP may well represent the exit strategy for current mainstream party supporters rather than their final destination, but whether more will be transferring from Labour to Conservative via UKIP or Conservative to Labour via UKIP, I wouldn't like to guess.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    taffys said:

    Trouble is, UKIP hasn't really yet started its promised offensive on labour voters, whilst the tories will probably get swing back of some sort...

    Here's the first salvo:

    Carlotta

    What I would really like to see is an UKIP PPB targetting Green voters.

    Perhaps Roger could come up with some storyboards.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited June 2013
    AveryLP said:

    taffys said:

    Trouble is, UKIP hasn't really yet started its promised offensive on labour voters, whilst the tories will probably get swing back of some sort...

    Here's the first salvo:

    Carlotta

    What I would really like to see is an UKIP PPB targetting Green voters.

    Perhaps Roger could come up with some storyboards.

    Targetting like this ?

    " Under Ukip, we would opt out of EU rules preventing us from using Green voters as a cheap source of energy...."

    Would get my vote.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    .Just back from a nice excursion to St James Park. Lovely sunny day, but crowds of tourists and kids, (either not returning to school or bunking off), in droves.
    As fore the Thread, I just want to say that UKIP will get to all parts of the UK, but some parts more more than others. Have a nice day.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Knight, Frank (whatever happened to Rutley?) announced today that prices for luxury homes in central London grew at their slowest rates this year and that they expected this trend to continue at least to the end of the year. Knightsbridge properties fell by -0.3% and those in Belgravia by -0.2% leading to overall prices for prime London property only increasing by 0.3% in the month.

    And the reason for this?

    The market for luxury homes in London is cooling at a time when prices for less-expensive properties are picking up, helped by a credit-boosting program by the Bank of England and the U.K. Treasury. While demand for prime real estate remains strong, Knight Frank said would-be buyers of homes valued at as much as 2 million pounds ($3 million) are becoming more price sensitive.

    Boy George is not only a great Chancellor but he seems also to be a great champion of wealth distribution and fairness too.

    Wherever will the Lib Dems go next?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Toby Young takes the pith out of Labour's free schools u-turn u-turn u-turn.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100220028/when-it-comes-to-free-schools-labour-has-more-positions-than-the-kama-sutra/

    "Tony Blair thinks free schools are a good idea, while Ed Miliband doesn't think they're the right answer. Andy Burnham is opposed to all free schools, apart from those set up by former Labour Party apparatchiks, while Stephen Twigg thinks no politician should be opposed to such schools unless they fall foul of his five "evidence-based criteria".

    Or maybe not.

    Meanwhile, Ed Balls doesn't have a problem with opening more free schools provided they're not in areas that have "excess places", even though he has described the policy as the "most socially divisive education experiment" for 60 years."
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited June 2013
    TGOHF said:

    AveryLP said:

    taffys said:

    Trouble is, UKIP hasn't really yet started its promised offensive on labour voters, whilst the tories will probably get swing back of some sort...

    Here's the first salvo:

    Carlotta

    What I would really like to see is an UKIP PPB targetting Green voters.

    Perhaps Roger could come up with some storyboards.

    Targetting like this ?

    " Under Ukip, we would opt out of EU rules preventing us from using Green voters as a cheap source of energy...."

    Would get my vote.
    TGOHF

    That would be enough to make the normally fireproof Neil spontaneously combust.

  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited June 2013
    @TGOHF

    Who said Labour didn't do comedy.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    AveryLP said:

    TGOHF said:

    AveryLP said:

    taffys said:

    Trouble is, UKIP hasn't really yet started its promised offensive on labour voters, whilst the tories will probably get swing back of some sort...

    Here's the first salvo:

    Carlotta

    What I would really like to see is an UKIP PPB targetting Green voters.

    Perhaps Roger could come up with some storyboards.

    Targetting like this ?

    " Under Ukip, we would opt out of EU rules preventing us from using Green voters as a cheap source of energy...."

    Would get my vote.
    TGOHF

    That would be enough to make the normally inflammable Neil combust.

    Combust ? Wont he think of the melting baby polar bears ?
This discussion has been closed.