Sure is Friday or as we say in my manor, Farage-day.
Coffee House reached out to Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP for Clacton, who declined to comment on Farage’s remarks. Carswell responded to say he was travelling to his constituency and was ‘not in a position to comment’ right now.
Mark Reckless, the Ukip member for Rochester and Strood, also declined to comment. ‘I am not aware of his remarks and I have no comment to make’, he said, also noting that he has been focused on the legal action the Tories are pursuing against him.
This is odd, as both men — particularly Carswell — have always been known as outspoken, bold types who like to have a good robust debate. Carswell himself said ‘we should welcome those that want to come here to contribute’ and ‘On the subject of immigration, let me make it absolutely clear; I’m not against immigration’ when he defected.
Perhaps both feel that they have had to go from backbench mavericks in the Tory party to well-polished representatives of Ukip who defend, rather than criticise, their own party.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
Sure is Friday or as we say in my manor, Farage-day.
Coffee House reached out to Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP for Clacton, who declined to comment on Farage’s remarks. Carswell responded to say he was travelling to his constituency and was ‘not in a position to comment’ right now.
Mark Reckless, the Ukip member for Rochester and Strood, also declined to comment. ‘I am not aware of his remarks and I have no comment to make’, he said, also noting that he has been focused on the legal action the Tories are pursuing against him.
This is odd, as both men — particularly Carswell — have always been known as outspoken, bold types who like to have a good robust debate. Carswell himself said ‘we should welcome those that want to come here to contribute’ and ‘On the subject of immigration, let me make it absolutely clear; I’m not against immigration’ when he defected.
Perhaps both feel that they have had to go from backbench mavericks in the Tory party to well-polished representatives of Ukip who defend, rather than criticise, their own party.
Yes, they criticised Tory policy, not Cameron's comments in radio interviews
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
Looking at the pictures of the mug at the top of the thread (no not me you fools - the actual mug!) makes me think about how uncertain things looked back in 2010. Cameron and Clegg have done a pretty good job of coalition. Whatever flavours we might get in the next parliament I hope that lessons will have been learned that with sufficient effort on both sides coalition can provide a stable option.
I rather hope that the next government doesn't finish up with the SNP propping it up (whether actively, or inactively). It seems to me that we're likely to just get uncertainty and divisiveness if that's the case.
Odd that we'll probably have the leadership of 5 parties preferring the Tories to get more votes than Labour; The Tories themselves, Clegg in that his future probably rests on that, Farage in that he wants a referendum, the Greens because the Labour votes might come to them, and the SNP because it just makes life easier for them, and brings independence closer. (Tongue somewhat in cheek in all this)
Might as well. If someone really cares about austerity above all else they will vote Tory, but most people are a bit more ambivalent, especially when they see the reality of actual cutting to the things they care about.
The second reason – and the potentially dangerous one from David Cameron’s perspective – is that it gives voters the excuse they are looking for to vote Labour. In the eyes of the public, the Tories are still the nasty party...People would prefer to vote Labour, but feel they can’t
Makes sense to me, unfair on the Tories though it may be. The only part I disagree with is the prediction that even this tactic won't work.
When will we learn? Never in the case of pb thread headers.
Polling at the moment is a complete waste of space.
Come back later in January.
It pains me to say so but I agree with Audreyanne. I do think that January is too early. Personally I think nothing much will happen until February when it dawns on most of the population that if they vote Labour Ed Miliband will end up running the country. The violent swingback that occurs shortly afterwards will become known as the St Valentines Day Massacre.
FWIW this is what I think will happen.
Labour share of the vote will drop to 25-27. First sign of disaster is when tories retain Stevenage
Tory share of the vote will be near but a little lower than they got last time. However they will win three or four extra seats in Scotland.
Liberals will get 9-10% but unexpectedly lose safe seats in places like the West Country and North Norfolk to tories due to the protest vote element of their vote defecting to UKIP and much of the rest going back to Labour (where it was borrowed from) or to the Greens.
The Greens will get up to 7% of the vote but no seats as Tory/UKIP voters in Brighton will vote tactically for Labour causing Lucas to lose her seat.
UKIP see their vote share decline a bit as some wealthier voters slink back to Tories for fear of what will happen if Labour win, however they win up to 20 seats, the biggest shock is that most are former Labour seats.
SNP will come out of the election bitterly disappointed as they turn dozens of safe Labour seats
Overall tories will win much the same amount of seats as now. UKIP will deny them a majority and no one else will have enough seats to form a coalition with them or countenance doing so. Tories decide to run a minority government and then go to the queen the day after Ed Miliband resigns during Labour conference speech with the party descending into civil war. Second inconclusive election follows in October with Tories three short of a majority.
Tories then dissolve parliament after Gideon persuades the PM it is a good idea and call third election in Spring 2016 with the intention of bankrupting the opposition. Half way through the campaign Labour and Liberals forced to call in official reciever and declare insolvency with their candidates having to stand as independents as a result. Tories finish third behind UKIP as a disgusted electorate rejects Tories and a national coalition of independents (formerly Labour and Liberals) forms a government.
Why is it acceptable for big businesses to be overtly party-political, but not charities?
Charitable status sort of implies that you're doing something that everyone agrees with doesn't it? "No tax for you, because your works are unequivocally good". I'm sure every business in the land wouldn't make a political peep if they could get a similar deal.
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
UKIP fans = speaking human as that's how the working class is, therefore honest and rough diamond, "pure".
Islington snobs = unwelcome vernacular suggests elements prone to racism and unwelcome riff raff.
It's a great brand. Both sides happy.
I think most people don't have a problem with such words unless they are used in inappropriate places
ie in the sort of company where F'ing and Blinding would cause offence.
or if used to a person to insult them (eg saying to the waiter "Oi Chinky" or something)
or with someone of a liberal persuasion in earshot that thinks saying derogatory words about anyone (except Christians of course) is a modern secular blasphemy and deserving the highest punishment (in this case it is quite tempting to say it to wind them up but probably not worth the hassle)
If this guy had used the words on Question time that is one thing, but in a private phone call another. As I keep saying the real potential scandal here which everyone appears to have overlooked is that someone recorded his phone call (seemingly without informing him that he had done so) then made it available to a third party who published it.
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
You've missed the point too - 1/1 for you.
Welcome to my club of not understanding the UKIP pure and genuine world.
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
When will we learn? Never in the case of pb thread headers.
Polling at the moment is a complete waste of space.
Come back later in January.
It pains me to say so but I agree with Audreyanne. I do think that January is too early. Personally I think nothing much will happen until February when it dawns on most of the population that if they vote Labour Ed Miliband will end up running the country. The violent swingback that occurs shortly afterwards will become known as the St Valentines Day Massacre.
FWIW this is what I think will happen.
Labour share of the vote will drop to 25-27. First sign of disaster is when tories retain Stevenage
Tory share of the vote will be near but a little lower than they got last time. However they will win three or four extra seats in Scotland.
Liberals will get 9-10% but unexpectedly lose safe seats in places like the West Country and North Norfolk to tories due to the protest vote element of their vote defecting to UKIP and much of the rest going back to Labour (where it was borrowed from) or to the Greens.
The Greens will get up to 7% of the vote but no seats as Tory/UKIP voters in Brighton will vote tactically for Labour causing Lucas to lose her seat.
UKIP see their vote share decline a bit as some wealthier voters slink back to Tories for fear of what will happen if Labour win, however they win up to 20 seats, the biggest shock is that most are former Labour seats.
SNP will come out of the election bitterly disappointed as they turn dozens of safe Labour seats
Overall tories will win much the same amount of seats as now. UKIP will deny them a majority and no one else will have enough seats to form a coalition with them or countenance doing so. Tories decide to run a minority government and then go to the queen the day after Ed Miliband resigns during Labour conference speech with the party descending into civil war. Second inconclusive election follows in October with Tories three short of a majority.
Tories then dissolve parliament after Gideon persuades the PM it is a good idea and call third election in Spring 2016 with the intention of bankrupting the opposition. Half way through the campaign Labour and Liberals forced to call in official reciever and declare insolvency with their candidates having to stand as independents as a result. Tories finish third behind UKIP as a disgusted electorate rejects Tories and a national coalition of independents (formerly Labour and Liberals) forms a government.
That's an interesting tale Paul, but if the nation votes in May as you are suggesting, the Tories would be returned with a very large overall majority.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
I feel an unusual need to comment re the NHS,headlines are full of "Chaos/Crisis in A&E" etc,Struggling to cope. How must the hardworking staff feel being a political football. I had a problem on Monday,and felt an urgent need to be seen by a consultant that I see 2 or 3 times a year,I phoned on the off chance I might get a cancellation,my next appointment was due late January 2015. The hospital rang back on Tuesday and said she would see me on Friday as an extra,but be prepared for a wait,no problem. The clinic was running over an hour late,no doubt exacerbated by my unplanned extra,and no doubt some will complain about delays. I got superb treatment,very polite staff,excellent consultant,Oh did I mention she was East European. Politicians should be praising the NHS for coping with unprecedented volumes. Labour sometimes come across as appearing to criticize the shop floor staff doing their best. To maintain the 95% target would mean having staff and facilities that at most times are underused just to have the reserve of coping with the Winter/ Friday night drunks rush. We should be proud of how well they are coping,not constantly kicking them,serious A and E will be treated with urgency. PS I jumped a red light on the way to avoid a blue light ambulance,hope I do not get booked.
When will we learn? Never in the case of pb thread headers.
Polling at the moment is a complete waste of space.
Come back later in January.
It pains me to say so but I agree with Audreyanne. I do think that January is too early. Personally I think nothing much will happen until February when it dawns on most of the population that if they vote Labour Ed Miliband will end up running the country. The violent swingback that occurs shortly afterwards will become known as the St Valentines Day Massacre.
FWIW this is what I think will happen.
Labour share of the vote will drop to 25-27. First sign of disaster is when tories retain Stevenage
Tory share of the vote will be near but a little lower than they got last time. However they will win three or four extra seats in Scotland.
Liberals will get 9-10% but unexpectedly lose safe seats in places like the West Country and North Norfolk to tories due to the protest vote element of their vote defecting to UKIP and much of the rest going back to Labour (where it was borrowed from) or to the Greens.
The Greens will get up to 7% of the vote but no seats as Tory/UKIP voters in Brighton will vote tactically for Labour causing Lucas to lose her seat.
UKIP see their vote share decline a bit as some wealthier voters slink back to Tories for fear of what will happen if Labour win, however they win up to 20 seats, the biggest shock is that most are former Labour seats.
SNP will come out of the election bitterly disappointed as they turn dozens of safe Labour seats
Overall tories will win much the same amount of seats as now. UKIP will deny them a majority and no one else will have enough seats to form a coalition with them or countenance doing so. Tories decide to run a minority government and then go to the queen the day after Ed Miliband resigns during Labour conference speech with the party descending into civil war. Second inconclusive election follows in October with Tories three short of a majority.
Tories then dissolve parliament after Gideon persuades the PM it is a good idea and call third election in Spring 2016 with the intention of bankrupting the opposition. Half way through the campaign Labour and Liberals forced to call in official reciever and declare insolvency with their candidates having to stand as independents as a result. Tories finish third behind UKIP as a disgusted electorate rejects Tories and a national coalition of independents (formerly Labour and Liberals) forms a government.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
You've missed the point too - 1/1 for you.
Welcome to my club of not understanding the UKIP pure and genuine world.
I think he has got the point actually, so it's 0/1 for him
That's an interesting tale Paul, but if the nation votes in May as you are suggesting, the Tories would be returned with a very large overall majority.
Yes, I probably wrote too much but if its entertaining :-)
The St Valentines Day Swingback Massacre will I think happen though. As that will be when the "floating" electorate decide they had better look at who the politicians they are going to vote for are and what they are like, take one look at the two Eds, shudder, and either not bother to vote, vote UKIP or Green and in a few cases vote Tory.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class people
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
indeed.
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
I think its pretty sad these days. Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism. Not sure how the French feel. I don't mind being called a roast beef. It brings it home to you that however sloppy we were in the 50's someone somewhere has to start ignoring racial stereotypes. I'm not sure that Scots mind being called Jock or Welsh, Taffy. It would be interesting to know. 'Paddy' for Irish might be a bit different because of past history. This is the point. where a slang word has a disparaging connotation then we ought to not use it. Where a slang word like what we are discussuing is used in an endless diatribe of abuse I think we can draw our conclusions.
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class people
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
indeed.
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
I think its pretty sad these days. Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism. Not sure how the French feel. I don't mind being called a roast beef. It brings it home to you that however sloppy we were in the 50's someone somewhere has to start ignoring racial stereotypes. I'm not sure that Scots mind being called Jock or Welsh, Taffy. It would be interesting to know. 'Paddy' for Irish might be a bit different because of past history. This is the point. where a slang word has a disparaging connotation then we ought to not use it. Where a slang word like what we are discussuing is used in an endless diatribe of abuse I think we can draw our conclusions.
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
I think I agree, I don't use terms like that myself, just doesn't occur to me really.
But plenty of people on this site call Frenchmen "frogs".. and no one seems to mind
"During his political career he has been a member of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the now defunct Veritas party as well founding his own group, the Unity Party."
One of our foremost politicians denied all of his true callings.
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
Yes indeed
Who said any different?
Some on here seem to believe the WWC are very different to everyone else who lives in this country. In my experience, they are pretty much the same. They want a decent life, a better one for their kids and speak differently in public and private, with mates or not, and so on. The romanticisation of the working class was always a very middle class, left wing thing. It has now become a right wing one too. Both sides ignore the inconvenient bits.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class people
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
indeed.
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
I think its pretty sad these days. Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism. Not sure how the French feel. I don't mind being called a roast beef. It brings it home to you that however sloppy we were in the 50's someone somewhere has to start ignoring racial stereotypes. I'm not sure that Scots mind being called Jock or Welsh, Taffy. It would be interesting to know. 'Paddy' for Irish might be a bit different because of past history. This is the point. where a slang word has a disparaging connotation then we ought to not use it. Where a slang word like what we are discussuing is used in an endless diatribe of abuse I think we can draw our conclusions.
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
"Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism."
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
Yes indeed
Who said any different?
Some on here seem to believe the WWC are very different to everyone else who lives in this country. In my experience, they are pretty much the same. They want a decent life, a better one for their kids and speak differently in public and private, with mates or not, and so on. The romanticisation of the working class was always a very middle class, left wing thing. It has now become a right wing one too. Both sides ignore the inconvenient bits.
"During his political career he has been a member of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and the now defunct Veritas party as well founding his own group, the Unity Party."
One of our foremost politicians denied all of his true callings.
Yep, saw him on Newsnight a while ago. Absolute dick head. No surprise he's having a few local difficulties.
Hard to argue with the majority sentiments in the poll. The idea that in a plural democracy politicians from a number of parties can work together in the common interest whether as part of a governing bloc or not doesn't seem terribly outlandish.
In European-style Coalitions, the governing Party doesn't always have a majority so has to talk to other parties to see if a majority can be created for legislation it wants to introduce.
Nothing wrong with that either in my view. The problem is that even on 60% vote share, the duopoly of CON-LAB will still win the overwhelming majority of seats under FPTP given the fragmented nature of the third party vote. If a single "third" Party also had 30%, it would win many more seats.
Proponents of adversarial politics argue that only through majoritarian single-party Government can radical legislation be introduced which does not initially command support in the electorate but comes to be seen as a sensible measure.
I think the idea that people were afraid of hung parliaments before 2010 was always more of a concoction by the two main parties than anything based on reality.
Hard to argue with the majority sentiments in the poll. The idea that in a plural democracy politicians from a number of parties can work together in the common interest whether as part of a governing bloc or not doesn't seem terribly outlandish.
In European-style Coalitions, the governing Party doesn't always have a majority so has to talk to other parties to see if a majority can be created for legislation it wants to introduce.
Nothing wrong with that either in my view. The problem is that even on 60% vote share, the duopoly of CON-LAB will still win the overwhelming majority of seats under FPTP given the fragmented nature of the third party vote. If a single "third" Party also had 30%, it would win many more seats.
Proponents of adversarial politics argue that only through majoritarian single-party Government can radical legislation be introduced which does not initially command support in the electorate but comes to be seen as a sensible measure.
Proponents of coalition politics ignore the fact that voters cannot determine what they are voting for. Few like every policy of the party they cast a vote for and it will be often the case that the policies they did like will be bartered away.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
The idea that all white working class people merrily talk about chinkies and poofters is laughable. Some do, some don't. Much like everyone else really.
Yes indeed
Who said any different?
Some on here seem to believe the WWC are very different to everyone else who lives in this country. In my experience, they are pretty much the same. They want a decent life, a better one for their kids and speak differently in public and private, with mates or not, and so on. The romanticisation of the working class was always a very middle class, left wing thing. It has now become a right wing one too. Both sides ignore the inconvenient bits.
Yes, I agree 100%
But why are you saying all of this? What prompted it?
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class people
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
indeed.
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
I think its pretty sad these days. Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism. Not sure how the French feel. I don't mind being called a roast beef. It brings it home to you that however sloppy we were in the 50's someone somewhere has to start ignoring racial stereotypes. I'm not sure that Scots mind being called Jock or Welsh, Taffy. It would be interesting to know. 'Paddy' for Irish might be a bit different because of past history. This is the point. where a slang word has a disparaging connotation then we ought to not use it. Where a slang word like what we are discussuing is used in an endless diatribe of abuse I think we can draw our conclusions.
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
I think you need to look to your own sins; stop whinging about UKIP being racist bigots who steal your voters (an interesting commentary, BTW, on what you think of you think of people who voted Conservative in 2010) and try winning people over to your cause.
I think the idea that people were afraid of hung parliaments before 2010 was always more of a concoction by the two main parties than anything based on reality.
Perhaps but we had generations of "minority Government = weak Government" drummed into us by the media as well as the parties. It was a huge part of 1992 and the Tory victory to argue that IF Major didn't get a majority the country would face the "disaster" of a Kinnock minority Government propped up by Paddy Ashdown's Lib Dems etc.
There's also the inate problem some adversarial politicians have of working with opponents. I don't think it's a problem for many but listening to some of the activists on here it's easy to suppose that some of them would find the idea of working with other parties hard to stomach. The idea that if you can't have all the power you don't want any of it does exist.
Proponents of coalition politics ignore the fact that voters cannot determine what they are voting for. Few like every policy of the party they cast a vote for and it will be often the case that the policies they did like will be bartered away.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
With respect, that's a selfish view. We don't get everything we want in this life and sometimes we're forced to accept unpleasant compromises because the alternative is even worse.
What, in your view, should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 ? Said to Cameron "we won't work with you because we only want our policies enacted".
Should paralysis have ensued until a second or even third election was needed to create a majority ? Politics doesn't work like that - I agree no one voted for Coalition but in voting LD you were supporting a Party which believed in plural politics and parties co-operating. It should have come as no surprise to see that co-operation even if it was with a Party you personally didn't like.
Did those who voted Conservative in 2010 want Coalition or compromise ? The Tories had never struck me as a Party which did co-operation and plural politics but then Cameron was a "liberal Conservative" then - not sure what he is now.
It wasn't incorrect to say there was no train connection east of Cannon St, as I was talking about bridges. I am aware of the tube and Rotherhithe/Blackwall Tunnels
Biased towards my neck of the woods but it seems to me a nonsense that to get to Kent from Essex, or vice versa if you don't drive you have to commute into London, cross a bridge or get the tube, then get a train back again, when as the crow flies its about two miles if that.
A public underpass for pedestrians or cyclists from Rainham to Erith would be much more practical than the Garden Bridge
Railways don't need to be on bridges to cross a river or any other body of water (see Eurostar!).
But you can get to Kent from Essex by public transport - the X80 bus from Lakeside to Bluewater
Not sure about the Garden Bridge - not heard of it prior to this evening. Today I was in St James's Park in London, and crossed over Westminster Bridge at sunset.
Proponents of coalition politics ignore the fact that voters cannot determine what they are voting for. Few like every policy of the party they cast a vote for and it will be often the case that the policies they did like will be bartered away.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
With respect, that's a selfish view. We don't get everything we want in this life and sometimes we're forced to accept unpleasant compromises because the alternative is even worse.
What, in your view, should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 ? Said to Cameron "we won't work with you because we only want our policies enacted".
Should paralysis have ensued until a second or even third election was needed to create a majority ? Politics doesn't work like that - I agree no one voted for Coalition but in voting LD you were supporting a Party which believed in plural politics and parties co-operating. It should have come as no surprise to see that co-operation even if it was with a Party you personally didn't like.
Did those who voted Conservative in 2010 want Coalition or compromise ? The Tories had never struck me as a Party which did co-operation and plural politics but then Cameron was a "liberal Conservative" then - not sure what he is now.
1 I didnt vote LD I voted conservative
2 My vote was taken from me by a stitch up in dark smoky rooms
In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so.
Serious question...do you think if the coalition had to be put to a vote that they would have got a mandate? Personally I think the answer would have been a resounding No.
Cameron and Clegg claimed a mandate for their coalition. The fact that a lot of the voters who cast a vote for either of them deserted them in droves as soon as the coalition came to light says quite loudly no they didn't
It wasn't incorrect to say there was no train connection east of Cannon St, as I was talking about bridges. I am aware of the tube and Rotherhithe/Blackwall Tunnels
Biased towards my neck of the woods but it seems to me a nonsense that to get to Kent from Essex, or vice versa if you don't drive you have to commute into London, cross a bridge or get the tube, then get a train back again, when as the crow flies its about two miles if that.
A public underpass for pedestrians or cyclists from Rainham to Erith would be much more practical than the Garden Bridge
Railways don't need to be on bridges to cross a river or any other body of water (see Eurostar!).
But you can get to Kent from Essex by public transport - the X80 bus from Lakeside to Bluewater
Not sure about the Garden Bridge - not heard of it prior to this evening. Today I was in St James's Park in London, and crossed over Westminster Bridge at sunset.
I don't like that QE2 Bridge at the best of times let alone on a bus!
Proponents of coalition politics ignore the fact that voters cannot determine what they are voting for. Few like every policy of the party they cast a vote for and it will be often the case that the policies they did like will be bartered away.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
...
1 I didnt vote LD I voted conservative
2 My vote was taken from me by a stitch up in dark smoky rooms
In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so.
Serious question...do you think if the coalition had to be put to a vote that they would have got a mandate? Personally I think the answer would have been a resounding No.
Cameron and Clegg claimed a mandate for their coalition. The fact that a lot of the voters who cast a vote for either of them deserted them in droves as soon as the coalition came to light says quite loudly no they didn't
We had just had a vote, one which left no overall majority. A minority govt would have got very little of its mandate through. At a time of econimic crisis. Do you really think that minority govts can avoid back door deals withminority parties which demand quid pro pro for support? The whole point of this thread is that poll findings show support for coalitions. So your personal opinion is given a resounding rebuff.
At its most basic level democracy is enacting the will of the people.
How can you enact the will of the people when the manifesto you claim to implement is not one anyone had a chance to say yes or no to?
All coalition government does is moves power from the people to politicians who can decide once all votes are cast what their manifesto actually is. If you want coalitions to be the norm then frankly there is no point any party publishing a manifesto as it is not worth the paper its written on ( not that there is all that much point even with majority governments). It also allows them the getout clause of "oh but its not a conservative government its a coalition and we couldn't do x because they wouldn't let us". Parties will be able to put all sorts of crap in their manifesto's which they have no intention of honouring but they think they will get some votes off because they know they can drop it like a hot potato during the coalition negotiations.
If you want coalitions they should barter ahead of the election and stand on a joint manifesto not make it up after they have all the votes in
Proponents of coalition politics ignore the fact that voters cannot determine what they are voting for. Few like every policy of the party they cast a vote for and it will be often the case that the policies they did like will be bartered away.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
...
1 I didnt vote LD I voted conservative
2 My vote was taken from me by a stitch up in dark smoky rooms
In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so.
Serious question...do you think if the coalition had to be put to a vote that they would have got a mandate? Personally I think the answer would have been a resounding No.
Cameron and Clegg claimed a mandate for their coalition. The fact that a lot of the voters who cast a vote for either of them deserted them in droves as soon as the coalition came to light says quite loudly no they didn't
We had just had a vote, one which left no overall majority. A minority govt would have got very little of its mandate through. At a time of econimic crisis. Do you really think that minority govts can avoid back door deals withminority parties which demand quid pro pro for support? The whole point of this thread is that poll findings show support for coalitions. So your personal opinion is given a resounding rebuff.
No just as usual you are wrong support for labour or conservative majorities in polls of what people want far exceeds those saying they want a coalition government. I believe the actual figure saying they want the next government to be a coalition is 29% hardly the ringing endorsement you claim
Proponents of coalition politics ignore the fact that voters cannot determine what they are voting for. Few like every policy of the party they cast a vote for and it will be often the case that the policies they did like will be bartered away.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
With respect, that's a selfish view. We don't get everything we want in this life and sometimes we're forced to accept unpleasant compromises because the alternative is even worse.
What, in your view, should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 ? Said to Cameron "we won't work with you because we only want our policies enacted".
Should paralysis have ensued until a second or even third election was needed to create a majority ? Politics doesn't work like that - I agree no one voted for Coalition but in voting LD you were supporting a Party which believed in plural politics and parties co-operating. It should have come as no surprise to see that co-operation even if it was with a Party you personally didn't like.
Did those who voted Conservative in 2010 want Coalition or compromise ? The Tories had never struck me as a Party which did co-operation and plural politics but then Cameron was a "liberal Conservative" then - not sure what he is now.
1 I didnt vote LD I voted conservative
2 My vote was taken from me by a stitch up in dark smoky rooms
No your vote was not taken from you . It was included in the count but there were insufficient people who voted the same way to elect the government you wanted .
Think that puts your idea to bed that my opinion is rebuffed as last time I looked 65 is almost twice as big as 35, that before you consider that those wanting a lab/ld coalition probably dont want a con/ld coalition and vice versa
We can if fact probably conclude that even if we take the highest figure a mere 1 in 5 people want a coalition government
"In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so."
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
Think that puts your idea to bed that my opinion is rebuffed as last time I looked 65 is almost twice as big as 35, that before you consider that those wanting a lab/ld coalition probably dont want a con/ld coalition and vice versa
We can if fact probably conclude that even if we take the highest figure a mere 1 in 5 people want a coalition government
But of those 65% who do not want a Coalition , I expect that half of them do NOT want a Conservative majority government and half do NOT want a Labour majority government .
You did neither. You voted for a person, who was a member of a political party. If you can't trust him to act in the interest of you his constituent then you can vote for someone else or stand yourself.
While I am being hyperbolic, the fragmenting of the vote, together with the increase in MPs not willing to sheepishly follow them through the lobbies, is weakening the parties, and particularly the power of the whips, and ending the situation where a party leader with a majority can behave as a dictator whipping his MPs into line.
This means that parliament is drifting away from the executive and perhaps before too long might resume its proper role of scrutinising and restraining them.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
I think its pretty sad these days. Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism. Not sure how the French feel. I don't mind being called a roast beef. ...
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
I think you need to look to your own sins; stop whinging about UKIP being racist bigots who steal your voters (an interesting commentary, BTW, on what you think of you think of people who voted Conservative in 2010) and try winning people over to your cause.
A commentary on people voting UKIP? We can see that a lot of people voted for Carswell - the same Carswell who has said twice now, after his re-election and after the rough diamond's resignation that we should respect immigrants. Basically they voted for an independent minded rebel tory who in his dreams wants to lead UKIP and pursue his own rebel politics. Farage went out of his way to keep Smith on the ticket. Farage and his dog whistles (oh sorry 'jokes') speak for themselves. I sincerely hope that very few people vote for UKIP. If you want to defend Farage and all his people and his activities then do it. Personally what I want is a referendum on the EU. This is of course the last thing Farage wants.
At its most basic level democracy is enacting the will of the people.
How can you enact the will of the people when the manifesto you claim to implement is not one anyone had a chance to say yes or no to?
All coalition government does is moves power from the people to politicians who can decide once all votes are cast what their manifesto actually is. If you want coalitions to be the norm then frankly there is no point any party publishing a manifesto as it is not worth the paper its written on ( not that there is all that much point even with majority governments). It also allows them the getout clause of "oh but its not a conservative government its a coalition and we couldn't do x because they wouldn't let us". Parties will be able to put all sorts of crap in their manifesto's which they have no intention of honouring but they think they will get some votes off because they know they can drop it like a hot potato during the coalition negotiations.
If you want coalitions they should barter ahead of the election and stand on a joint manifesto not make it up after they have all the votes in
I didn't read all the manifestos of all the parties last time - I suspect you would have found some areas of agreement across two or more of those documents though not couched in those terms.
What is a manifesto anyway ? It's what the party, if it won a majority, would seek to enact within the parliament. Some of it may be possible and practical, some may not - the manifestos are subject to scrutiny and critique so the more outlandish commitments are soon revealed for the folly they are.
You could argue that since only the Conservative and Labour Governments are likely to form a majority, theirs should be the only real manifestos of Governments. For the minor parties, more meaningful documents would be the areas they would seek to influence were they to work with either a Conservative or Labour minority Government (it's showing the negotiating hand in advance but it would be honest).
Since no one won a majority, all the 2010 manifestos failed but the country still needed a Government so it became incumbent on the politicians to seek to create that Government and to make it as stable as possible.
Yes, it would have been nice to have seen a more coherent and cohesive Coalition Agreement which could then have been put to a referendum but it doesn't work like that. Parties like the Conservatives and Labour don't actively plan for Coalition - it's not part of their experience or their modus operandi.
"In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so."
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
I totally agree. I do not like representative democracy in the least and prefer an elected executive where we can vote on the education policy we want, the defence policy we want etc in the full knowledge of the costings. I used a restaurant analogy before. I want to go for the dishes I want not the set meal A or B options we are currently offered.
However representative democracy is what we are currently stuck with despite it not being a good model anymore and it is going to take many years before we abandon it for a better model. I am merely pointing out that coalitions are even worse because currently we get half the people liking set meal A and half liking set meal B but what we actually end up with is set meal C.
Coalitions put the power ever more firmly in the hands of politicians. They decide what we voted on after we have voted. That cannot be right.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class people
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
indeed.
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
....
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
"Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism."
New balls please, just laughed the old ones off.
You live in the same old sad delusional world I see. No matter how many examples Farage and his cronies serve up you continue to laugh them off. You are the one who has to sleep on that at night not me.
"In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so."
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
This is however a consequence of FPTP. In a proportional system, there would be no monolithic Conservative or Labour party but a series of smaller parties which would oscillate in and out of probably a "centre-right" bloc of parties and a "centre-left" bloc of parties.
Our two voters would each have their own niche party to support but both would (at times) form part of a centre-right bloc which might be in Government. It might be possible for the pro-EU party to side with other pro-EU parties of the centre or centre-left on occasions either inside or outside Government.
Trumpton UKIP will need to bring out a Working Class Dictionary.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·2 mins2 minutes ago Greenwich, London Farage: "We’re very snobbish in London about condemning people for the colloquial language they use". Poofter. Chinky. Ukip colloquialism.
It must be Friday.. Farage says something that resonates with most working class people
uber PC parody account thinks its onto something / So called "Metropolitan elite" try to make capital
indeed.
off for a tapas at the local spics. laters,
Hmm point beautifully missed there, you've excelled yourself
Thanks - it ain't easy.
You make it seem instinctive
Practice... mind you I'm only 3,000 goes... some still working on it at 10000+
Instinctively missing the point? You are right, I just cant seem to do it
Interesting that's your perception.
What do you make of people calling Frenchmen or women "frogs" by the way?
....
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
"Especially when we see one particular political party making use of whipped up racism."
New balls please, just laughed the old ones off.
You live in the same old sad delusional world I see. No matter how many examples Farage and his cronies serve up you continue to laugh them off. You are the one who has to sleep on that at night not me.
When the conservatives stop their racism you may cast a stone until then perhaps you should think about the biblical phrase of "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
"In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so."
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
This is however a consequence of FPTP. In a proportional system, there would be no monolithic Conservative or Labour party but a series of smaller parties which would oscillate in and out of probably a "centre-right" bloc of parties and a "centre-left" bloc of parties.
Our two voters would each have their own niche party to support but both would (at times) form part of a centre-right bloc which might be in Government. It might be possible for the pro-EU party to side with other pro-EU parties of the centre or centre-left on occasions either inside or outside Government.
No this is a problem of representative democracy which is a stone age system in the 21st century. Our so called representatives make no effort to even pretend they represent us anymore instead they represent their party. It is time they remembered we are the masters and they are the servants because currently they seem to believe it is the other way round
"In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so."
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
Good post. Indeed for your hypothetical two centre right voters a post election coalition is a more honest one. If there was a single pre election centre right party there would be no certainty that the elected party fairly represented the voters view. It may just depend on who controlled the selection process.
"In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so."
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
Good post. Indeed for your hypothetical two centre right voters a post election coalition is a more honest one. If there was a single pre election centre right party there would be no certainty that the elected party fairly represented the voters view. It may just depend on who controlled the selection process.
And how do you answer the voter who gets none of what he voted for in the coalition but still has his vote counted towards their mandate?
The problem I have to put it bluntly here and I am quite politically aware and have always voted is this. If coalition politics becomes the norm then I fail to see any point in voting anymore. I cannot cast a ballot and know what it means in advance therefore making that ballot more like a lottery ticket than a conscious choice. Maybe I will win and the coalition will enact the policies I support, maybe they will drop all the policies I support in the rush to coalition.
We already have a problem with voter detachment. Coalition governments will only exacerbate this in my view
Charles quotes the following comment... ''If cyclists were allowed to ride, to provide a safe pedestrian environment it would be necessary to incorporate segregated cycle lanes or wider shared paths. This would result in a much reduced planted area and erode the benefits of the bridge as a green space.''
The benefit being peace quiet and safety. Cycle paths in pavements (which are quite common) are positively dangerous. Cyclists speed and are silent and seem incapable of using bells whistles or any warning device. Cyclists anywhere are positively dangerous to pedestrians. Cycle paths in roads regularly theaten the life and limb of everybody.
Cycles have absolutly no bearing on this bridge.
On *this* bridge, yes. Which is why *this* bridge is the wrong bridge.
Now we get to the heart of it.
You like cycling. Therefore anything which benefits pedestrians, but not cyclists, is the wrong thing.
Cyclists who want to go fast across the bridge can go to Blackfriars or Waterloo which, as have been noted, are not far away.
Pedestrians who want to stroll across the bridge and contemplate the universe surrounded by plants and greenery can use this bridge.
Underlying all the conservative attacks on UKIP here and elsewhere is an indignancy and outrage that their voters should dare to vote for an alternative centre right party.
As time goes on and UKIP remain stubbornly at 500% higher than their 2010 standing in the polls it is starting to remind me of this.
Charles quotes the following comment... ''If cyclists were allowed to ride, to provide a safe pedestrian environment it would be necessary to incorporate segregated cycle lanes or wider shared paths. This would result in a much reduced planted area and erode the benefits of the bridge as a green space.''
The benefit being peace quiet and safety. Cycle paths in pavements (which are quite common) are positively dangerous. Cyclists speed and are silent and seem incapable of using bells whistles or any warning device. Cyclists anywhere are positively dangerous to pedestrians. Cycle paths in roads regularly theaten the life and limb of everybody.
Cycles have absolutly no bearing on this bridge.
On *this* bridge, yes. Which is why *this* bridge is the wrong bridge.
Now we get to the heart of it.
You like cycling. Therefore anything which benefits pedestrians, but not cyclists, is the wrong thing.
Cyclists who want to go fast across the bridge can go to Blackfriars or Waterloo which, as have been noted, are not far away.
Pedestrians who want to stroll across the bridge and contemplate the universe surrounded by plants and greenery can use this bridge.
Sadly, you've missed the heart of it.
This bridge does not benefit pedestrians: it benefits pedestrians who can follow the stupid rules they've already set out for users of the bridge. More than eight people: no. At certain times of the day: no. when there's a private function:no.
All of this might be forgiveable were it not for the hideously massive price tag, a good portion of which is coming out of the public purse. It's going to cost ten times what the Millennium bridge cost, and an eighth of what the massive 1.7-mile long Queensferry motorway suspension bridge in Scotland is costing, FFS.
"Pedestrians who want to stroll across the bridge and contemplate the universe surrounded by plants and greenery can use this bridge."
Haver you even looked at the pictures? It's hardly "Surrounded by": a few paltry bushes and trees. It's hideous and makes absolutely no sense conceptually. If you want trees, go to one of London's many excellent parks.
"You like cycling. Therefore anything which benefits pedestrians, but not cyclists, is the wrong thing."
Given my main hobby, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
FPT: Mr. M, Farage is entirely wrong. 'Pre-prepared' is a bloody ridiculous term and those using it should be thrashed around the head and neck with a large fish.
... I must confess I wrote that before reading your second paragraph. And I'm still entirely correct. 'Pre-prepared'... what other kind of bloody preparing is there? Preparing after something's happened? The exact prefix is already in the damned word.
See also loathsome term 'guesstimate'.
What else can you do with sticky-back plastic?
Estimate. Estimate already means you don't know the answer.
I disagree.
An estimate is worked out with a degree of rigour.
A guess is just that.
There is room for a useful word in between - a bit like an "informed guess" but that could be misconstrued
Comments
Coffee House reached out to Douglas Carswell, the Ukip MP for Clacton, who declined to comment on Farage’s remarks. Carswell responded to say he was travelling to his constituency and was ‘not in a position to comment’ right now.
Mark Reckless, the Ukip member for Rochester and Strood, also declined to comment. ‘I am not aware of his remarks and I have no comment to make’, he said, also noting that he has been focused on the legal action the Tories are pursuing against him.
This is odd, as both men — particularly Carswell — have always been known as outspoken, bold types who like to have a good robust debate. Carswell himself said ‘we should welcome those that want to come here to contribute’ and ‘On the subject of immigration, let me make it absolutely clear; I’m not against immigration’ when he defected.
Perhaps both feel that they have had to go from backbench mavericks in the Tory party to well-polished representatives of Ukip who defend, rather than criticise, their own party.
Feel free to sign up as a show of support
2/2 for you so far in the misjudgement stakes
UKIP fans = speaking human as that's how the working class is, therefore honest and rough diamond, "pure".
Islington snobs = unwelcome vernacular suggests elements prone to racism and unwelcome riff raff.
It's a great brand. Both sides happy.
I rather hope that the next government doesn't finish up with the SNP propping it up (whether actively, or inactively). It seems to me that we're likely to just get uncertainty and divisiveness if that's the case.
Odd that we'll probably have the leadership of 5 parties preferring the Tories to get more votes than Labour; The Tories themselves, Clegg in that his future probably rests on that, Farage in that he wants a referendum, the Greens because the Labour votes might come to them, and the SNP because it just makes life easier for them, and brings independence closer. (Tongue somewhat in cheek in all this)
Poor old Ed!
http://www.gilesthomas.com/2014/12/euvat-accepting-bitcoins-impractical-eu-businesses/
The second reason – and the potentially dangerous one from David Cameron’s perspective – is that it gives voters the excuse they are looking for to vote Labour. In the eyes of the public, the Tories are still the nasty party...People would prefer to vote Labour, but feel they can’t
Makes sense to me, unfair on the Tories though it may be. The only part I disagree with is the prediction that even this tactic won't work.
FWIW this is what I think will happen.
Labour share of the vote will drop to 25-27. First sign of disaster is when tories retain Stevenage
Tory share of the vote will be near but a little lower than they got last time. However they will win three or four extra seats in Scotland.
Liberals will get 9-10% but unexpectedly lose safe seats in places like the West Country and North Norfolk to tories due to the protest vote element of their vote defecting to UKIP and much of the rest going back to Labour (where it was borrowed from) or to the Greens.
The Greens will get up to 7% of the vote but no seats as Tory/UKIP voters in Brighton will vote tactically for Labour causing Lucas to lose her seat.
UKIP see their vote share decline a bit as some wealthier voters slink back to Tories for fear of what will happen if Labour win, however they win up to 20 seats, the biggest shock is that most are former Labour seats.
SNP will come out of the election bitterly disappointed as they turn dozens of safe Labour seats
Overall tories will win much the same amount of seats as now. UKIP will deny them a majority and no one else will have enough seats to form a coalition with them or countenance doing so. Tories decide to run a minority government and then go to the queen the day after Ed Miliband resigns during Labour conference speech with the party descending into civil war. Second inconclusive election follows in October with Tories three short of a majority.
Tories then dissolve parliament after Gideon persuades the PM it is a good idea and call third election in Spring 2016 with the intention of bankrupting the opposition. Half way through the campaign Labour and Liberals forced to call in official reciever and declare insolvency with their candidates having to stand as independents as a result. Tories finish third behind UKIP as a disgusted electorate rejects Tories and a national coalition of independents (formerly Labour and Liberals) forms a government.
Smith is totally right about Westminster not representing the working classes.
ie in the sort of company where F'ing and Blinding would cause offence.
or if used to a person to insult them (eg saying to the waiter "Oi Chinky" or something)
or with someone of a liberal persuasion in earshot that thinks saying derogatory words about anyone (except Christians of course) is a modern secular blasphemy and deserving the highest punishment (in this case it is quite tempting to say it to wind them up but probably not worth the hassle)
If this guy had used the words on Question time that is one thing, but in a private phone call another. As I keep saying the real potential scandal here which everyone appears to have overlooked is that someone recorded his phone call (seemingly without informing him that he had done so) then made it available to a third party who published it.
Welcome to my club of not understanding the UKIP pure and genuine world.
Who said any different?
I had a problem on Monday,and felt an urgent need to be seen by a consultant that I see 2 or 3 times a year,I phoned on the off chance I might get a cancellation,my next appointment was due late January 2015.
The hospital rang back on Tuesday and said she would see me on Friday as an extra,but be prepared for a wait,no problem.
The clinic was running over an hour late,no doubt exacerbated by my unplanned extra,and no doubt some will complain about delays.
I got superb treatment,very polite staff,excellent consultant,Oh did I mention she was East European.
Politicians should be praising the NHS for coping with unprecedented volumes. Labour sometimes come across as appearing to criticize the shop floor staff doing their best.
To maintain the 95% target would mean having staff and facilities that at most times are underused just to have the reserve of coping with the Winter/ Friday night drunks rush.
We should be proud of how well they are coping,not constantly kicking them,serious A and E will be treated with urgency.
PS I jumped a red light on the way to avoid a blue light ambulance,hope I do not get booked.
The St Valentines Day Swingback Massacre will I think happen though. As that will be when the "floating" electorate decide they had better look at who the politicians they are going to vote for are and what they are like, take one look at the two Eds, shudder, and either not bother to vote, vote UKIP or Green and in a few cases vote Tory.
This is another turd in the punch-bowl for them:
http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-19/ukip-branch-suspended-during-mystery-investigation/
It looks pretty shambolic.
It brings it home to you that however sloppy we were in the 50's someone somewhere has to start ignoring racial stereotypes.
I'm not sure that Scots mind being called Jock or Welsh, Taffy. It would be interesting to know. 'Paddy' for Irish might be a bit different because of past history. This is the point. where a slang word has a disparaging connotation then we ought to not use it. Where a slang word like what we are discussuing is used in an endless diatribe of abuse I think we can draw our conclusions.
The leader of UKIPs new European allies can teach us all a lot about that. Kerry Smith is the least we should be talking about.
But plenty of people on this site call Frenchmen "frogs".. and no one seems to mind
One of our foremost politicians denied all of his true callings.
New balls please, just laughed the old ones off.
Hard to argue with the majority sentiments in the poll. The idea that in a plural democracy politicians from a number of parties can work together in the common interest whether as part of a governing bloc or not doesn't seem terribly outlandish.
In European-style Coalitions, the governing Party doesn't always have a majority so has to talk to other parties to see if a majority can be created for legislation it wants to introduce.
Nothing wrong with that either in my view. The problem is that even on 60% vote share, the duopoly of CON-LAB will still win the overwhelming majority of seats under FPTP given the fragmented nature of the third party vote. If a single "third" Party also had 30%, it would win many more seats.
Proponents of adversarial politics argue that only through majoritarian single-party Government can radical legislation be introduced which does not initially command support in the electorate but comes to be seen as a sensible measure.
My vote in 2010 was wasted because I would never have voted for a party proposing the coalition agreement in a hundred years, from the reaction of lib dem voters who moved en masse I was not alone in feeling that I had been short changed and my vote stolen by a manifesto I never had a chance to vote on
But why are you saying all of this? What prompted it?
There's also the inate problem some adversarial politicians have of working with opponents. I don't think it's a problem for many but listening to some of the activists on here it's easy to suppose that some of them would find the idea of working with other parties hard to stomach. The idea that if you can't have all the power you don't want any of it does exist.
Qatar makes Tottenham Hotspur its goal
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb07f95c-86ba-11e4-8a51-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk_politics/feed//product&siteedition=uk#axzz3MNGR2c3Q
What, in your view, should Nick Clegg have done in 2010 ? Said to Cameron "we won't work with you because we only want our policies enacted".
Should paralysis have ensued until a second or even third election was needed to create a majority ? Politics doesn't work like that - I agree no one voted for Coalition but in voting LD you were supporting a Party which believed in plural politics and parties co-operating. It should have come as no surprise to see that co-operation even if it was with a Party you personally didn't like.
Did those who voted Conservative in 2010 want Coalition or compromise ? The Tories had never struck me as a Party which did co-operation and plural politics but then Cameron was a "liberal Conservative" then - not sure what he is now.
But you can get to Kent from Essex by public transport - the X80 bus from Lakeside to Bluewater
Not sure about the Garden Bridge - not heard of it prior to this evening. Today I was in St James's Park in London, and crossed over Westminster Bridge at sunset.
2 My vote was taken from me by a stitch up in dark smoky rooms
In my opinion a dead locked election is not the voters telling politicians we want a coalition it is us telling them that none of their manifesto's are fit for purpose. Go away and rethink them then come back and ask us for a mandate in six months when you have done so.
Serious question...do you think if the coalition had to be put to a vote that they would have got a mandate? Personally I think the answer would have been a resounding No.
Cameron and Clegg claimed a mandate for their coalition. The fact that a lot of the voters who cast a vote for either of them deserted them in droves as soon as the coalition came to light says quite loudly no they didn't
At its most basic level democracy is enacting the will of the people.
How can you enact the will of the people when the manifesto you claim to implement is not one anyone had a chance to say yes or no to?
All coalition government does is moves power from the people to politicians who can decide once all votes are cast what their manifesto actually is. If you want coalitions to be the norm then frankly there is no point any party publishing a manifesto as it is not worth the paper its written on ( not that there is all that much point even with majority governments). It also allows them the getout clause of "oh but its not a conservative government its a coalition and we couldn't do x because they wouldn't let us". Parties will be able to put all sorts of crap in their manifesto's which they have no intention of honouring but they think they will get some votes off because they know they can drop it like a hot potato during the coalition negotiations.
If you want coalitions they should barter ahead of the election and stand on a joint manifesto not make it up after they have all the votes in
No just as usual you are wrong support for labour or conservative majorities in polls of what people want far exceeds those saying they want a coalition government. I believe the actual figure saying they want the next government to be a coalition is 29% hardly the ringing endorsement you claim
Went back a few threads and seems I understated it
here
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/02/25/coalition-versus-con-majority-or-lab-majority-the-latest-ashcroft-mega-poll/
35% total want a coalition
65% dont want a coalition
Think that puts your idea to bed that my opinion is rebuffed as last time I looked 65 is almost twice as big as 35, that before you consider that those wanting a lab/ld coalition probably dont want a con/ld coalition and vice versa
We can if fact probably conclude that even if we take the highest figure a mere 1 in 5 people want a coalition government
It's very hard to agree with that. A proper democracy gives people real choice as to who they vote for. You can only get real choice when you have more than two credible parties because there's far more to politics than simply being "a bit to the right" or a "bit to the left".
Take a random centre-right voter who is pro-EU, pro-immigration and socially liberal - they'll have very little in common with a centre-right voter who is anti-EU, anti-immigration and socially conservative, yet in the two party system these two voters end up getting artificially shoved together into one giant party of the centre-right simply because there isn't anyone else to vote for. Such parties only get majorities due to the limitation of options, not because there's a majority of people who actually believe in their complete agenda.
If you have a proper multitude of credible options in the parties you can vote for you will almost never have one party getting a majority - it doesn't matter how many elections you hold, people just don't think the same way on multiple issues to the extent required for that to happen. The only time it usually happens is when one issue (e.g. Scottish independence and the SNP) manages to trump everything else on the agenda.
While I am being hyperbolic, the fragmenting of the vote, together with the increase in MPs not willing to sheepishly follow them through the lobbies, is weakening the parties, and particularly the power of the whips, and ending the situation where a party leader with a majority can behave as a dictator whipping his MPs into line.
This means that parliament is drifting away from the executive and perhaps before too long might resume its proper role of scrutinising and restraining them.
What is a manifesto anyway ? It's what the party, if it won a majority, would seek to enact within the parliament. Some of it may be possible and practical, some may not - the manifestos are subject to scrutiny and critique so the more outlandish commitments are soon revealed for the folly they are.
You could argue that since only the Conservative and Labour Governments are likely to form a majority, theirs should be the only real manifestos of Governments. For the minor parties, more meaningful documents would be the areas they would seek to influence were they to work with either a Conservative or Labour minority Government (it's showing the negotiating hand in advance but it would be honest).
Since no one won a majority, all the 2010 manifestos failed but the country still needed a Government so it became incumbent on the politicians to seek to create that Government and to make it as stable as possible.
Yes, it would have been nice to have seen a more coherent and cohesive Coalition Agreement which could then have been put to a referendum but it doesn't work like that. Parties like the Conservatives and Labour don't actively plan for Coalition - it's not part of their experience or their modus operandi.
However representative democracy is what we are currently stuck with despite it not being a good model anymore and it is going to take many years before we abandon it for a better model. I am merely pointing out that coalitions are even worse because currently we get half the people liking set meal A and half liking set meal B but what we actually end up with is set meal C.
Coalitions put the power ever more firmly in the hands of politicians. They decide what we voted on after we have voted. That cannot be right.
Our two voters would each have their own niche party to support but both would (at times) form part of a centre-right bloc which might be in Government. It might be possible for the pro-EU party to side with other pro-EU parties of the centre or centre-left on occasions either inside or outside Government.
new thread
We already have a problem with voter detachment. Coalition governments will only exacerbate this in my view
You like cycling. Therefore anything which benefits pedestrians, but not cyclists, is the wrong thing.
Cyclists who want to go fast across the bridge can go to Blackfriars or Waterloo which, as have been noted, are not far away.
Pedestrians who want to stroll across the bridge and contemplate the universe surrounded by plants and greenery can use this bridge.
As time goes on and UKIP remain stubbornly at 500% higher than their 2010 standing in the polls it is starting to remind me of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWIbCtz_Xwk
This bridge does not benefit pedestrians: it benefits pedestrians who can follow the stupid rules they've already set out for users of the bridge. More than eight people: no. At certain times of the day: no. when there's a private function:no.
All of this might be forgiveable were it not for the hideously massive price tag, a good portion of which is coming out of the public purse. It's going to cost ten times what the Millennium bridge cost, and an eighth of what the massive 1.7-mile long Queensferry motorway suspension bridge in Scotland is costing, FFS.
"Pedestrians who want to stroll across the bridge and contemplate the universe surrounded by plants and greenery can use this bridge."
Haver you even looked at the pictures? It's hardly "Surrounded by": a few paltry bushes and trees. It's hideous and makes absolutely no sense conceptually. If you want trees, go to one of London's many excellent parks.
"You like cycling. Therefore anything which benefits pedestrians, but not cyclists, is the wrong thing."
Given my main hobby, you could not be more wrong if you tried.
I disagree.
An estimate is worked out with a degree of rigour.
A guess is just that.
There is room for a useful word in between - a bit like an "informed guess" but that could be misconstrued