RT A referendum is one man/woman,one vote How on earth do you think Cameron can swing that his way..if ,as you say, ..he is a closet Europhile..If the population think he has not got a good deal then they will vote accordingly...Cameron only has one vote..just like you..You will not be offered the choice with Labour .
One might say the same thing about the 1975 referendum and we all know how that worked out. Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave Britain if we did not become full participants in the Euro or agree to further transference of powers. None of them have left of course since it was all rubbish. In the same way Cameron will make all sorts of promises about what he has won in the way of concessions, all of which will turn out to be meaningless and unfulfilled once we have voted to remain.
The idea that Cameron is 'just one vote' is frankly ludicrous.
Of course I should also point out that if you do like the Tory party (I don't know if that is the case or not) then Cameron winning will be a disaster for you since he will certainly destroy the party in 2017.
''RT Can you honestly say you want Cameron to hold a referendum..you in particular seem to be afraid of the outcome..which would probably be OUT''
When did you start thinking that UKIP was about Europe??? I reckon 70-80% of kippers posts on here are about Burkhas, ISIS, Terrorists, mass rape in Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Lee Rigby, lack of integration among muslims etc. etc. etc.
Whether David Cameron holds a referendum or not is completely inconsequential to UKIPers. They want a Britain that is very, very different from the Britain of today, of which getting out of Europe is a small part and a means to an end.
David Cameron may deliver a referendum, but he would never deliver UKippers the Britain they want.
Taffys he was talking to me not about UKIP. I don't jump on the Islam bashing wagon nor do I think that generally rape and terrorism are subjects for political knockabout.
You have no idea of the Britain I want - which is very similar to that envisaged and espoused by RCS. It certainly isn't the one you believe drives my membership of UKIP.
You wont convince these dimbats that UKIP is a party made up of all shades of opinion but if there is one major purpose it is to leave the EU. UKIP simply doesn't believe that Cammo will deliver on his promise.
King Cole, a referendum is a different bag of monkeys.
True; it's high time the European Movement stretched itself after a long sleep as a campaigning organisation, put a team together and, like the Guardian the other day pointed up the considerable benefits being in the EU has brought us.
Still having bees, consequently apples, for a start.
The European Movement is filled with people who swore blind the UK would be finished if we didn't join the Euro. Their credibility is zero.
John O'Nolan @JohnONolan · May 6 It’s amazing how people’s behaviour towards UKIP is the very same behaviour which they claim to oppose: ignorance, intolerance & aggression.
RT My political stance is massively to the right of the Conservative party..but as I read the posts on PB I definitely get the whiff of panic in the UKIP ranks..maybe because you are all getting rather shrill...and don't seem to really know what it is you want.
' Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave'
That won't change whenever we have an in/out referendum.
RT My political stance is massively to the right of the Conservative party..but as I read the posts on PB I definitely get the whiff of panic in the UKIP ranks..maybe because you are all getting rather shrill...and don't seem to really know what it is you want.
Looking at your comments column leads me to believe that you are simply an old fashioned tory dressing in rightist rags.
' Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave'
That won't change whenever we have an in/out referendum.
Its also an exaggeration to say 'the politicians lie'. Politicians are like the rest of us, they have beliefs and opinions. In whatever they do or we do, it is not a zero sum game. There are risks and downsides. There are risks to leaving the EU. I am not sure the upsides warrant them. If we can detach ourselves from the EU with minimal risk there are upsides, but the EU is not going to go away. We will still have to deal with it and in effect there will be little difference to being out to where we are now. Sadly all we get from anti EU proponents is hysteria. There is very little evidence of any effort to show how the risk can be managed. As far as I can see the closest anyone has come to that is Farage who simply says that he is not bothered if we end up poorer. Indeed his remarks seem to assume we would be.
' Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave'
That won't change whenever we have an in/out referendum.
Its also an exaggeration to say 'the politicians lie'. Politicians are like the rest of us, they have beliefs and opinions. In whatever they do or we do, it is not a zero sum game. There are risks and downsides. There are risks to leaving the EU. I am not sure the upsides warrant them. If we can detach ourselves from the EU with minimal risk there are upsides, but the EU is not going to go away. We will still have to deal with it and in effect there will be little difference to being out to where we are now. Sadly all we get from anti EU proponents is hysteria. There is very little evidence of any effort to show how the risk can be managed. As far as I can see the closest anyone has come to that is Farage who simply says that he is not bothered if we end up poorer. Indeed his remarks seem to assume we would be.
Your last two sentences are an outright lie, @Flightpath.
' Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave'
That won't change whenever we have an in/out referendum.
Its also an exaggeration to say 'the politicians lie'. Politicians are like the rest of us, they have beliefs and opinions. In whatever they do or we do, it is not a zero sum game. There are risks and downsides. There are risks to leaving the EU. I am not sure the upsides warrant them. If we can detach ourselves from the EU with minimal risk there are upsides, but the EU is not going to go away. We will still have to deal with it and in effect there will be little difference to being out to where we are now. Sadly all we get from anti EU proponents is hysteria. There is very little evidence of any effort to show how the risk can be managed. As far as I can see the closest anyone has come to that is Farage who simply says that he is not bothered if we end up poorer. Indeed his remarks seem to assume we would be.
Not so. Heath lied and admitted it much later on. His elitist attitude that he knew better than the electorate and that important matters should not be left to the whims of democracy is alive and well in the upper echelons of government today.
Oh and the idea that there will be little difference between being in and out of the EU and that any benefits will be outweighed by the problems is just the sort of rubbish I am talking about. It is only spouted by those who are frightened of the public actually deciding we should leave.
@antifrank FPT I am extremely grateful for your reply about the various groups within your company.
Although my question was enabled by the flow of that thread the seed of it actually came from a recent incident in our office - or rather a series of incidents. I believe that we did not handle those events well and we need to do much better next time. I'm going to take your comments further when we next get together for a policy meeting.
RT My political stance is massively to the right of the Conservative party..but as I read the posts on PB I definitely get the whiff of panic in the UKIP ranks..maybe because you are all getting rather shrill...and don't seem to really know what it is you want.
I know exactly what I want and the best way to get it. It is those of you who still believe that a Tory victory could deliver withdrawal from the EU who are the confused ones.
Much better to have the referendum in 2017 whilst the EU is still in a mess and voters remember that the people telling us it will be disaster to leave are the same people that said it would be a disaster if we didn't join the euro.
And, for the avoidance of doubt although I'll be campaigning for IN I'd like to have a referendum so we can get a solid 60% or more in favour and put the negativity to bed.
Surely 55% is the (somewhat flexible) PB threshold for putting something to bed?
' Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave'
That won't change whenever we have an in/out referendum.
Its also an exaggeration to say 'the politicians lie'. Politicians are like the rest of us, they have beliefs and opinions. In whatever they do or we do, it is not a zero sum game. There are risks and downsides. There are risks to leaving the EU. I am not sure the upsides warrant them. If we can detach ourselves from the EU with minimal risk there are upsides, but the EU is not going to go away. We will still have to deal with it and in effect there will be little difference to being out to where we are now. Sadly all we get from anti EU proponents is hysteria. There is very little evidence of any effort to show how the risk can be managed. As far as I can see the closest anyone has come to that is Farage who simply says that he is not bothered if we end up poorer. Indeed his remarks seem to assume we would be.
If we leave the EU, it is most unlikely that the economy will collapse, or that it will surge, as a result.
GDP per head is currently 38K USD per head. Whether it falls to 36K USD per head, after leaving the EU, or increases to 40 K per head, is pretty marginal in the scheme of things.
20 Barking 4//7 Boston & Skegness 20 Bromsgrove 16 Dag & Rain Lads 20s 5 Dudley North 20@25s McL 12 Halesown & Rowley Regis 20 Morley & Outwood Lads are 33s 11//2 Newcastle Under Lyme** 8 Plymouth Moor View 16s 5//2 S Bas & E Thurrock 100@20 Up Lads 16 Staffordshire Moorlands 12 Stoke on Trent South 10 Telford £40@25s Lads UP 6//4 Thanet North 4//9 Thanet South 5/2 4//5 Thurrock PP £50@16 £75@16 6 Walsall North Lads are 16s 12 Walsall South 16 West Bromwich West 33 Wolverhampton NE 33s
I enjoyed the discussion about whether "chinky" was suitable terminology, and the consensus from our progressives was that it depended on whether the Chinese community found it offensive. Seems reasonable; if someone is offended, you shouldn't use the word.
What would happen on PB if a Ukip member found the word Kipper offensive? It is bandied around as a term of abuse frequently. I know it's unlikely but would the response be "No, we'll call you what we like"?
Ah, you may say, but a Kipper isn't a race. True, but if the important thing is subjective feelings of offence, that shouldn't matter.
Yes, I am teasing, but is there a correct answer?
I think Kippers would object to the use of kipper in the Australian slang sense.
RT Can you tell me how UKIP winning a few seats at the GE will give you what you want..You say you know what you want and how to get it..wanna share this great secret with the rest of us..You do seem a trifle confused.
RT A referendum is one man/woman,one vote How on earth do you think Cameron can swing that his way..if ,as you say, ..he is a closet Europhile..If the population think he has not got a good deal then they will vote accordingly...Cameron only has one vote..just like you..You will not be offered the choice with Labour .
One might say the same thing about the 1975 referendum and we all know how that worked out. Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave Britain if we did not become full participants in the Euro or agree to further transference of powers. None of them have left of course since it was all rubbish. In the same way Cameron will make all sorts of promises about what he has won in the way of concessions, all of which will turn out to be meaningless and unfulfilled once we have voted to remain.
The idea that Cameron is 'just one vote' is frankly ludicrous.
Of course I should also point out that if you do like the Tory party (I don't know if that is the case or not) then Cameron winning will be a disaster for you since he will certainly destroy the party in 2017.
The referendum will not destroy the tory party, on the contrary it will allow the party, members/MPs etc, to campaign accordingly. Someone will I am sure divine it differently for me but I suspect the tory party is desperate for an EU referendum whilst the Labour party will be only too pleased to keep the boil festering. Its not clear to me what you mean by 'all sorts of promises'. The issues will be resolved in an agreement, presumably a treaty. We are in that situation even now anyway in that any new treaty would legally (until the likes of you allow Labour to repeal it) be subject to ratification by a referendum. Your argument is bogus. We might also add of course that the 'OUT' people will be making all sorts of promises too, about how rosy life would be out of the EU and how the EU would be only too pleased for some reason to behave as we tell them, to our benefit and their detriment, when we have left. The difference here would be there is no treaty to ratify, only an exit to navigate.
The referendum will not destroy the tory party, on the contrary it will allow the party, members/MPs etc, to campaign accordingly. Someone will I am sure divine it differently for me but I suspect the tory party is desperate for an EU referendum whilst the Labour party will be only too pleased to keep the boil festering. Its not clear to me what you mean by 'all sorts of promises'. The issues will be resolved in an agreement, presumably a treaty. We are in that situation even now anyway in that any new treaty would legally (until the likes of you allow Labour to repeal it) be subject to ratification by a referendum. Your argument is bogus. We might also add of course that the 'OUT' people will be making all sorts of promises too, about how rosy life would be out of the EU and how the EU would be only too pleased for some reason to behave as we tell them, to our benefit and their detriment, when we have left. The difference here would be there is no treaty to ratify, only an exit to navigate.
The only argument that is bogus is your claim that there would be a treaty in place that would provide anything other than vague promises prior to the vote. That cannot and will not happen since it would require all 28 member states to have ratified it prior to the referendum. That is simply fantasy.
And once again you are being dishonest. No one - and certainly not UKIP - has ever claimed life would be rosy if only we would leave the EU. All they have claimed is that it would be better than it is now.
Of course that doesn't fit with your bigoted agenda so you won't understand it.
RT Can you tell me how UKIP winning a few seats at the GE will give you what you want..You say you know what you want and how to get it..wanna share this great secret with the rest of us..You do seem a trifle confused.
I can help.
The Kippers are playing the long game.
Although a victory for the Cons can give them everything they want, they think that Cam will renege on his promise, that a Cons victory giving them a referendum will be the wrong kind of referendum and that they are aiming for defeat for Cons in 2015, a more Kipper-friendly (Paterson? Rees-Mogg?) Cons leader installed, and then by 2040 a total Kipper victory.
Further to my reply to Mr D, the 2017 referendum could well be held when one of the major parties is changing leaders.
And, for the avoidance of doubt although I'll be campaigning for IN I'd like to have a referendum so we can get a solid 60% or more in favour and put the negativity to bed.
I'd be surprised - it will be a known date in the calender, so I'd assume parties will plan accordingly (although most likely leadership campaigns would be before the referendum)
RT Can you tell me how UKIP winning a few seats at the GE will give you what you want..You say you know what you want and how to get it..wanna share this great secret with the rest of us..You do seem a trifle confused.
I can help.
The Kippers are playing the long game.
Although a victory for the Cons can give them everything they want, they think that Cam will renege on his promise, that a Cons victory giving them a referendum will be the wrong kind of referendum and that they are aiming for defeat for Cons in 2015, a more Kipper-friendly (Paterson? Rees-Mogg?) Cons leader installed, and then by 2040 a total Kipper victory.
No, neither do I.
Winning seats is generally how one advances one's beliefs.
I enjoyed the discussion about whether "chinky" was suitable terminology, and the consensus from our progressives was that it depended on whether the Chinese community found it offensive. Seems reasonable; if someone is offended, you shouldn't use the word.
What would happen on PB if a Ukip member found the word Kipper offensive? It is bandied around as a term of abuse frequently. I know it's unlikely but would the response be "No, we'll call you what we like"?
Ah, you may say, but a Kipper isn't a race. True, but if the important thing is subjective feelings of offence, that shouldn't matter.
Yes, I am teasing, but is there a correct answer?
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
RT A referendum is one man/woman,one vote How on earth do you think Cameron can swing that his way..if ,as you say, ..he is a closet Europhile..If the population think he has not got a good deal then they will vote accordingly...Cameron only has one vote..just like you..You will not be offered the choice with Labour .
Don't fall into the trap of using RT's definitions.
Cameron is, by some way, the most Eurosceptic Tory leader for a generation. The entire centre of gravity in the party has shifted towards scepticism.
Of course I should also point out that if you do like the Tory party (I don't know if that is the case or not) then Cameron winning will be a disaster for you since he will certainly destroy the party in 2017.
Probably only to the extent that Wellington, Peel and Disraeli all destroyed the Tory party
I enjoyed the discussion about whether "chinky" was suitable terminology, and the consensus from our progressives was that it depended on whether the Chinese community found it offensive. Seems reasonable; if someone is offended, you shouldn't use the word.
What would happen on PB if a Ukip member found the word Kipper offensive? It is bandied around as a term of abuse frequently. I know it's unlikely but would the response be "No, we'll call you what we like"?
Ah, you may say, but a Kipper isn't a race. True, but if the important thing is subjective feelings of offence, that shouldn't matter.
Yes, I am teasing, but is there a correct answer?
If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
One has a choice about being a Kipper. It's a intellectual (or counter-intellectual, perhaps) decision. One doesn't have a choice about one's skin colour, eye shape, height or whatever
RT Can you tell me how UKIP winning a few seats at the GE will give you what you want..You say you know what you want and how to get it..wanna share this great secret with the rest of us..You do seem a trifle confused.
It is no secret and no confusion as I have said it on here often enough before. What matters is that the Tory party is pushed into a position where they are officially in favour of us leaving the EU. That cannot be achieved whilst Cameron is allowed to continue with this myth that he can provide meaningful and concrete repatriation of powers prior to any vote in 2017. The only way he could achieve that is through a treaty as anything else can be undone after the event. And he has simply not left himself enough time for that to happen.
Strangely perhaps for you, if he were to declare after the next election that having won he realises that he does not have enough time and that he is postponing a referendum until a set date at the end of his next term after a treaty had been ratified then I would have a lot more faith in him. It would be a practical change unforced by the need to win over the electorate and would signal that he was serious about the renegotiation strategy. As it stands he is clearly not serious about meaningful repatriation given the timeline he has set out.
So either Cameron losing the next election - opening up the possibility of a more Eurosceptic leader emerging - or UKIP having sufficient MPs to hold a balance of power and so influence the tone of both the negotiations and the subsequent referendum campaign both offer more hope to me of a positive outcome than Cameron's faux referendum which, in effect, will be on the EU as it is or with the promise of even further integration afterwards.
RT A referendum is one man/woman,one vote How on earth do you think Cameron can swing that his way..if ,as you say, ..he is a closet Europhile..If the population think he has not got a good deal then they will vote accordingly...Cameron only has one vote..just like you..You will not be offered the choice with Labour .
Don't fall into the trap of using RT's definitions.
Cameron is, by some way, the most Eurosceptic Tory leader for a generation. The entire centre of gravity in the party has shifted towards scepticism.
He's just not a BOOer.
He is certainly not a genuine Eurosceptic nor is he the most Eurosceptic leader of the last 20 years. Both Hague and IDS were more Eurosceptic than Cameron.
You wont convince these dimbats that UKIP is a party made up of all shades of opinion but if there is one major purpose it is to leave the EU. UKIP simply doesn't believe that Cammo will deliver on his promise.
For me, that is the fundamental contradiction in UKIP thinking (Richard Tyndall has probably come best to adopting a coherent, if not entirely plausible, position).
Fundamentally (please correct me if I am wrong) Kippers believe 3 things:
1. Cameron is incompetent 2. Cameron is a devious power-seeking shyster 3. Cameron is a liar
Now:
1. He has promised a referendum - but he's a liar (3) 2. So he doesn't hold a referendum - which will split the party and result in him losing his job (trust me on this) thereby contradicting (2)
ok:
1. So he holds a referendum 2. But lies about the renegotiation being a success - after all he's an incompetent (so it can't go well) and a liar 3. But he's not very competent so no one believes him 4. And that will split the Tory Party (trust me on that) - and result in him losing his job, thereby contradicting (2)
ok:
1. So he holds a referendum 2. He convinces a majority (I think he needs 2/3) of Tory MPs that the renegotiation has been a success (despite him being incompetent) 3. But the British people are true and honourable 4. Therefore he needs to throw the referendum in some other way (despite being incompetent)
It just doesn't stack up.
Fundamentally, he will do his best to renegotiate and put a case to the public if he believes it is good enough to stay in. The key question is whether he can carry the weight of the party with him - Patterson will always be a BOOer, but if he can convince Gove and Hammond to support the "IN" side that's a pretty good guarantee that it's a decent outcome. Neither of them are shrinking violets who are afraid to say what they believe in
The SNP are continuing to drip feed the results of the recent Panelbase poll. The results of the trust question are particularly interesting. Nick Clegg is so unpopular !!
Do you trust [NAME] to stand up for Scotland’s interests? Nicola Sturgeon – Yes: 59%; No: 27%; DK: 14% John Swinney – Yes: 42%; No: 28%; DK: 29% Patrick Harvie – Yes: 30%; No: 36%; DK: 34% Jim Murphy – Yes: 39%; No: 37%; DK: 25% Ruth Davidson – Yes: 27%; No: 52%; DK: 21% Willie Rennie – Yes: 19%; No: 50%; DK: 32% David Cameron – Yes: 18%; No: 70%; DK: 12% Nick Clegg – Yes: 10%; No: 74%; DK: 16% Ed Miliband – Yes: 18%; No: 63%; DK: 18%
Why would Cameron Clegg or Miliband "stand up for 8% of the country's interests"?
As we're all supposedly ''better together''. The SNP's full write up and data table can be found here:
You wont convince these dimbats that UKIP is a party made up of all shades of opinion but if there is one major purpose it is to leave the EU. UKIP simply doesn't believe that Cammo will deliver on his promise.
For me, that is the fundamental contradiction in UKIP thinking (Richard Tyndall has probably come best to adopting a coherent, if not entirely plausible, position).
Fundamentally (please correct me if I am wrong) Kippers believe 3 things:
1. Cameron is incompetent 2. Cameron is a devious power-seeking shyster 3. Cameron is a liar
Now:
1. He has promised a referendum - but he's a liar (3) 2. So he doesn't hold a referendum - which will split the party and result in him losing his job (trust me on this) thereby contradicting (2)
ok:
1. So he holds a referendum 2. But lies about the renegotiation being a success - after all he's an incompetent (so it can't go well) and a liar 3. But he's not very competent so no one believes him 4. And that will split the Tory Party (trust me on that) - and result in him losing his job, thereby contradicting (2)
ok:
1. So he holds a referendum 2. He convinces a majority (I think he needs 2/3) of Tory MPs that the renegotiation has been a success (despite him being incompetent) 3. But the British people are true and honourable 4. Therefore he needs to throw the referendum in some other way (despite being incompetent)
It just doesn't stack up.
Fundamentally, he will do his best to renegotiate and put a case to the public if he believes it is good enough to stay in. The key question is whether he can carry the weight of the party with him - Patterson will always be a BOOer, but if he can convince Gove and Hammond to support the "IN" side that's a pretty good guarantee that it's a decent outcome. Neither of them are shrinking violets who are afraid to say what they believe in
The mistake in your whole thesis is in the idea that Cameron is Incompetent. He has made some pretty stupid decisions, one of which directly contributed to him failing to win a majority in 2010 but I don't believe he is incompetent in the way you claim (that we believe).
I do believe he is a power seeking shyster and a liar. After all he is a politician and I am of the opinion that those traits are pretty much obligatory for anyone seeking high office. Even those who I might agree with I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.
''RT Can you honestly say you want Cameron to hold a referendum..you in particular seem to be afraid of the outcome..which would probably be OUT''
When did you start thinking that UKIP was about Europe??? I reckon 70-80% of kippers posts on here are about Burkhas, ISIS, Terrorists, mass rape in Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Lee Rigby, lack of integration among muslims etc. etc. etc.
Whether David Cameron holds a referendum or not is completely inconsequential to UKIPers. They want a Britain that is very, very different from the Britain of today, of which getting out of Europe is a small part and a means to an end.
David Cameron may deliver a referendum, but he would never deliver UKippers the Britain they want.
Taffys he was talking to me not about UKIP. I don't jump on the Islam bashing wagon nor do I think that generally rape and terrorism are subjects for political knockabout.
You have no idea of the Britain I want - which is very similar to that envisaged and espoused by RCS. It certainly isn't the one you believe drives my membership of UKIP.
You wont convince these dimbats that UKIP is a party made up of all shades of opinion but if there is one major purpose it is to leave the EU. UKIP simply doesn't believe that Cammo will deliver on his promise.
Kippers don't believe in anyone or anything except their own propaganda. They don't have a thought-through policy on anything, especially how they would negotiate the UK's relationship with the EU after Brexit..
Once again emphasising the bravery of those who go out to Africa to try and halt the spread of the disease. Hopefully she will recover as the previous nurse did.
RT Can you tell me how UKIP winning a few seats at the GE will give you what you want..You say you know what you want and how to get it..wanna share this great secret with the rest of us..You do seem a trifle confused.
I can help.
The Kippers are playing the long game.
Although a victory for the Cons can give them everything they want, they think that Cam will renege on his promise, that a Cons victory giving them a referendum will be the wrong kind of referendum and that they are aiming for defeat for Cons in 2015, a more Kipper-friendly (Paterson? Rees-Mogg?) Cons leader installed, and then by 2040 a total Kipper victory.
No, neither do I.
Winning seats is generally how one advances one's beliefs.
Agree; that's how it works. The Greens are very very nearly there.
But they have, to be fair, either influenced or capitalised on the prevailing mood.
The Kippers might do the same. But they are uniquely able to shoot themselves in the foot by ensuring the one thing they (apparently) really really want, they will not get.
Much better to settle into a (noble, important) role as pressure group.
''RT Can you honestly say you want Cameron to hold a referendum..you in particular seem to be afraid of the outcome..which would probably be OUT''
When did you start thinking that UKIP was about Europe??? I reckon 70-80% of kippers posts on here are about Burkhas, ISIS, Terrorists, mass rape in Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Lee Rigby, lack of integration among muslims etc. etc. etc.
Whether David Cameron holds a referendum or not is completely inconsequential to UKIPers. They want a Britain that is very, very different from the Britain of today, of which getting out of Europe is a small part and a means to an end.
David Cameron may deliver a referendum, but he would never deliver UKippers the Britain they want.
Taffys he was talking to me not about UKIP. I don't jump on the Islam bashing wagon nor do I think that generally rape and terrorism are subjects for political knockabout.
You have no idea of the Britain I want - which is very similar to that envisaged and espoused by RCS. It certainly isn't the one you believe drives my membership of UKIP.
You wont convince these dimbats that UKIP is a party made up of all shades of opinion but if there is one major purpose it is to leave the EU. UKIP simply doesn't believe that Cammo will deliver on his promise.
Kippers don't believe in anyone or anything except their own propaganda. They don't have a thought-through policy on anything, especially how they would negotiate the UK's relationship with the EU after Brexit..
If only they could compete with David Cameron's thought-through plan for negotiating the UK's relationship with the EU in absence of Brexit. That largely consists of saying they'll make a big stand, floating various ideas with the press, waiting to see which ones Germany shoots down, and then demanding the EU concedes the minor remnants that Angela Merkel has already waved through.
''RT Can you honestly say you want Cameron to hold a referendum..you in particular seem to be afraid of the outcome..which would probably be OUT''
When did you start thinking that UKIP was about Europe??? I reckon 70-80% of kippers posts on here are about Burkhas, ISIS, Terrorists, mass rape in Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Lee Rigby, lack of integration among muslims etc. etc. etc.
Whether David Cameron holds a referendum or not is completely inconsequential to UKIPers. They want a Britain that is very, very different from the Britain of today, of which getting out of Europe is a small part and a means to an end.
David Cameron may deliver a referendum, but he would never deliver UKippers the Britain they want.
Taffys he was talking to me not about UKIP. I don't jump on the Islam bashing wagon nor do I think that generally rape and terrorism are subjects for political knockabout.
You have no idea of the Britain I want - which is very similar to that envisaged and espoused by RCS. It certainly isn't the one you believe drives my membership of UKIP.
You wont convince these dimbats that UKIP is a party made up of all shades of opinion but if there is one major purpose it is to leave the EU. UKIP simply doesn't believe that Cammo will deliver on his promise.
Kippers don't believe in anyone or anything except their own propaganda. They don't have a thought-through policy on anything, especially how they would negotiate the UK's relationship with the EU after Brexit..
And they say us Kippers are angry people.............
RT Can you tell me how UKIP winning a few seats at the GE will give you what you want..You say you know what you want and how to get it..wanna share this great secret with the rest of us..You do seem a trifle confused.
I can help.
The Kippers are playing the long game.
Although a victory for the Cons can give them everything they want, they think that Cam will renege on his promise, that a Cons victory giving them a referendum will be the wrong kind of referendum and that they are aiming for defeat for Cons in 2015, a more Kipper-friendly (Paterson? Rees-Mogg?) Cons leader installed, and then by 2040 a total Kipper victory.
No, neither do I.
Winning seats is generally how one advances one's beliefs.
Agree; that's how it works. The Greens are very very nearly there.
But they have, to be fair, either influenced or capitalised on the prevailing mood.
The Kippers might do the same. But they are uniquely able to shoot themselves in the foot by ensuring the one thing they (apparently) really really want, they will not get.
Much better to settle into a (noble, important) role as pressure group.
Yes @Topping, we Kippers will knuckle our foreheads as the superior tories pass by.
The mistake in your whole thesis is in the idea that Cameron is Incompetent. He has made some pretty stupid decisions, one of which directly contributed to him failing to win a majority in 2010 but I don't believe he is incompetent in the way you claim (that we believe).
I do believe he is a power seeking shyster and a liar. After all he is a politician and I am of the opinion that those traits are pretty much obligatory for anyone seeking high office. Even those who I might agree with I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.
The competence piece was just a sidebar to satisfy @MikeK
Fundamentally, if he delays / twists / cheats on the referendum without carrying the majority of his party with him then he will be overthrown.
There are enough serious politicians like Gove and Hammond whose support he needs who would not be afraid to call foul if necessary. And once a politician loses the confidence of his senior colleagues he is done for.
Your claims that Conservatives will remove Cameron if he doesn't hold a referendum or pretends an unsuccessful repatriation is successful simply don't hold water. Just look at how Tories on here responded to the leadership claiming they'd halved the EU shakedown, or the promises for a big plan on limiting EU migration that ended up as some benefits tinkering. Conservatives will argue that night is day or black is white once they've been given a line from CCHQ.
Their first and foremost concern is defending the leadership in the spin cycle. They like to pretend they have principles over things like euroscepticism, but every time it comes to the test those principles go up in smoke, and they manage to convince themselves that new reason X, Y or Z is the reason why it's ok this time, because the big EU stand is just round the next corner.
Douglas Carswell is beginning to sound statesmanlike. So suppose Farage doesn't get a seat (quite likely) and Carswell retains his (very likely), can you see Farage staying on as UKIP leader in 2015? Nope, me neither. That 3/1 is the real value here.
Your claims that Conservatives will remove Cameron if he doesn't hold a referendum or pretends an unsuccessful repatriation is successful simply don't hold water. Just look at how Tories on here responded to the leadership claiming they'd halved the EU shakedown, or the promises for a big plan on limiting EU migration that ended up as some benefits tinkering. Conservatives will argue that night is day or black is white once they've been given a line from CCHQ.
Their first and foremost concern is defending the leadership in the spin cycle. They like to pretend they have principles over things like euroscepticism, but every time it comes to the test those principles go up in smoke, and they manage to convince themselves that new reason X, Y or Z is the reason why it's ok this time, because the big EU stand is just round the next corner.
The opinions of people on here don't matter.
Gove and Hammond (and a couple of others) do.
If Cameron can carry them then he is fine. But they have gone far enough towards BOO that they would be hard pressed to defend something that most of the MPs were uncomfortable with.
Douglas Carswell is beginning to sound statesmanlike. So suppose Farage doesn't get a seat (quite likely) and Carswell retains his (very likely), can you see Farage staying on as UKIP leader in 2015? Nope, me neither. That 3/1 is the real value here.
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
Your claims that Conservatives will remove Cameron if he doesn't hold a referendum or pretends an unsuccessful repatriation is successful simply don't hold water. Just look at how Tories on here responded to the leadership claiming they'd halved the EU shakedown, or the promises for a big plan on limiting EU migration that ended up as some benefits tinkering. Conservatives will argue that night is day or black is white once they've been given a line from CCHQ.
Their first and foremost concern is defending the leadership in the spin cycle. They like to pretend they have principles over things like euroscepticism, but every time it comes to the test those principles go up in smoke, and they manage to convince themselves that new reason X, Y or Z is the reason why it's ok this time, because the big EU stand is just round the next corner.
The opinions of people on here don't matter.
Gove and Hammond (and a couple of others) do.
If Cameron can carry them then he is fine. But they have gone far enough towards BOO that they would be hard pressed to defend something that most of the MPs were uncomfortable with.
Most of the MPs are unprincipled careerists in the Cameron mould. Even if Gove or Hammond did speak out, they wouldn't follow if it threatened their ministerial prospects. And that's assuming they did speak out: there's a damn good chance they'd just go to ground and avoid the media until the storm blew over.
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
It's interesting to see that "Sidney" (Hills' equivalent number to Shadsy) clearly doesn't believe that Labour is set to be largely wiped out by the SNP in Scotland. He's offering seemingly generous odds of 18/1 against them winning between 6-10 seats North of the Border and 7/1 against them winning between 11-15 seats there. For those of a nervous disposition, it's possible to combine these two bands by staking 29.6% and 70.4% respectively to achieve a winning return of 4.63/1 should either element prove successful.
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
1950's Britain would look fresh from 1930, but not 2014.
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
The only people on here dominating the threads talking about UKIP are deluded UKIP supporters such as yourself . The use of LibLabCon in their posts is a giveaway that Martians would recognise as part of their sickness .
20 Aldershot 6 Bognor & Littlehampton 8 Bournemouth West 7//2 Camborne & Redruth 10 Chatham & Aylseford 25 Coventry NW 25 East Surrey 25 Eltham 6 Gill & Rain 12 Harlow 33 Hereford & S Herefordshire Lads are 50s 20 Horsham 16 IoW 50 Luton North 50 N Swindon 25 Norwich N 5 NW Cambs 20 Redditch 25 Reigate 16 S Cambs 3 Sitting bourne & Sheppey 20 Stratford on Avon 10 Wolverhampton SE
Horsham? If the Tories dont win Horsham they will be down to a handful of mps
Horsham and many others on that list as possible UKIP gains shows just how deluded some UKIP supporters have become .
They are outside chances at big prices. If you want to lay any of the prices to the right of the seats feel free to say and I will smash them to pieces x
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
It's interesting to see that "Sidney" (Hills' equivalent number to Shadsy) clearly doesn't believe that Labour is set to be largely wiped out by the SNP in Scotland. He's offering seemingly generous odds of 18/1 against them winning between 6-10 seats North of the Border and 7/1 against them winning between 11-15 seats there. For those of a nervous disposition, it's possible to combine these two bands by staking 29.6% and 70.4% respectively to achieve a winning return of 4.63/1 should either element prove successful.
Indeed.
I see the odds on 0-5 & 6-10 have already been cut. IMO they're still value @ 33/1 & 12/1 respectively.
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
The only people on here dominating the threads talking about UKIP are deluded UKIP supporters such as yourself . The use of LibLabCon in their posts is a giveaway that Martians would recognise as part of their sickness .
I've only made a handful of posts over the last couple of weeks. I'm sorry you're bitter about the Lib Dems going the same way as the US Whigs.
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
1950's Britain would look fresh from 1930, but not 2014.
The most 1950s thing about our current political setup is the anachronistic dream of European integration. It only ever made sense for the short period after the European empires fell and emerging markets hadn't taken off yet.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Yeah, great analogies, Sam.
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Yeah, great analogies, Sam.
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Yeah, great analogies, Sam.
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
I'm very unfashionable. I'm proud of the British Empire. And when my atlas was pink. Sure, we did bad things - but I believe it was good overall. Few independent nations are better now without us.
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
FPT William Hill has a nice arb - 13-8 against Cameron being PM into 2016 ("Coalition specials") and Evens on Miliband being PM ("General Election special") in August 2015. Put a tenner on each and you only lose if Cameron is elected PM but gets bored or dies before December, or if some third person becomes PM next year. Oh, and you lose if Cameron resigns by Thursday this week, a possibility which they only offer at niggardly 25-1 odds.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Yeah, great analogies, Sam.
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
Douglas Carswell is beginning to sound statesmanlike. So suppose Farage doesn't get a seat (quite likely) and Carswell retains his (very likely), can you see Farage staying on as UKIP leader in 2015? Nope, me neither. That 3/1 is the real value here.
I simply don't see how a party can effectively have a leader over the medium term who is not in Parliament. Obviously at the moment in the lead up to the election UKIP and the Greens are in that boat but once the election is over it strikes me as utterly impractical that either will be able to continue with MPs in Parliament answering to an unelected leader outside.
As an addendum I wonder whether KIP will maintain their position of not whipping elected representatives. I hope they do but have more doubts.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
Plus the Greens - for those of us, like myself, with tastes in that direction. I suppose it's all well and good for those of us who support the Greens or UKIP to look forward to a different kind of politics - but I expect we'll all be somewhat disappointed in the end whatever happens. If (in our respective dreams) the Greens and UKIP were to somehow replace Labour and the Conservatives they'd eventually end up occupying the same old ground. The big worry is that in order to carry on being distinct and different Green/UKIP need Lab/Con to survive in some major form.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Yeah, great analogies, Sam.
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
What does that mean?
You can answer my question first if you like
"what are you trying to say?" - that question?
OK - I was trying to say that it was no surprise that people talk about UKIP on PB.com and that this was not an obsession but was part of talking about politics because despite the fact that they are making a horlicks of it, UKIP are trying to be a political party.
Your turn now.
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
I adore Ethiopian men with coal dark colouring and almond eyes. They are usually very tall. I find the obsession with anothers preferred types very peculiar. 70 yrs ago we had a film called Gentleman Prefer Blondes
Some guys like girls with a big rack. Are they tittest?
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
Your claims that Conservatives will remove Cameron if he doesn't hold a referendum or pretends an unsuccessful repatriation is successful simply don't hold water. Just look at how Tories on here responded to the leadership claiming they'd halved the EU shakedown, or the promises for a big plan on limiting EU migration that ended up as some benefits tinkering. Conservatives will argue that night is day or black is white once they've been given a line from CCHQ.
Their first and foremost concern is defending the leadership in the spin cycle. They like to pretend they have principles over things like euroscepticism, but every time it comes to the test those principles go up in smoke, and they manage to convince themselves that new reason X, Y or Z is the reason why it's ok this time, because the big EU stand is just round the next corner.
The opinions of people on here don't matter.
Gove and Hammond (and a couple of others) do.
If Cameron can carry them then he is fine. But they have gone far enough towards BOO that they would be hard pressed to defend something that most of the MPs were uncomfortable with.
Most of the MPs are unprincipled careerists in the Cameron mould. Even if Gove or Hammond did speak out, they wouldn't follow if it threatened their ministerial prospects. And that's assuming they did speak out: there's a damn good chance they'd just go to ground and avoid the media until the storm blew over.
David Davis might cause trouble as of course he has othing to lose... and actually I think Gove might as well. Not sure about Hammond.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Yeah, great analogies, Sam.
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
(Better analogy.)
What are you trying to say? I didn't complain that UKIP were so often the subject of conversation, just noted the similarities between they way they are talked of, and other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
What does that mean?
You can answer my question first if you like
"what are you trying to say?" - that question?
OK - I was trying to say that it was no surprise that people talk about UKIP on PB.com and that this was not an obsession but was part of talking about politics because despite the fact that they are making a horlicks of it, UKIP are trying to be a political party.
Your turn now.
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
Que?
Ah.. well as I said, I didn't complain about the UKIP dominated talk, just noted the similarities between the way UKIP are talked of and the way other people that threaten to lessen the power of those in charge..
For a blog site where most people have no time for UKIP, they are spending a lot of time talking about them. UKIP vs anti-UKIP has dominated all the threads for weeks now if not longer.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
LibLabCon are all intellectually exhausted. They have no big ideas or new thinking to change the path Britain is on. The only two parties offering a fresh new platform are the SNP and UKIP.
The only people on here dominating the threads talking about UKIP are deluded UKIP supporters such as yourself . The use of LibLabCon in their posts is a giveaway that Martians would recognise as part of their sickness .
Yes of course including the 'Lib' in that term is a dead give-away of a delusion since they are so insignificant now as to be nothing short of a laughing stock.
Douglas Carswell is beginning to sound statesmanlike. So suppose Farage doesn't get a seat (quite likely) and Carswell retains his (very likely), can you see Farage staying on as UKIP leader in 2015? Nope, me neither. That 3/1 is the real value here.
Agreed audreyanne.3-1 is tempting on Farage.He seems to me to be walking heart-attack material but perhaps I am influenced by his similarity to my brother-in-law who had a similar lifestyle and died of lung cancer at 54.His tobacco addiction took him as many others and was the motivation for me to quit.Farage would do well and be a much better role model if he could even switch to vaping nicotine instead.(BTW I read Cameron is back on the fags).
I rather liked David D until his ego ran off with a unicorn - I've a tweak of narcissism and I'd never provoke a by-election I couldn't lose just to perk up my ego.
Your claims that Conservatives will remove Cameron if he doesn't hold a referendum or pretends an unsuccessful repatriation is successful simply don't hold water. Just look at how Tories on here responded to the leadership claiming they'd halved the EU shakedown, or the promises for a big plan on limiting EU migration that ended up as some benefits tinkering. Conservatives will argue that night is day or black is white once they've been given a line from CCHQ.
Their first and foremost concern is defending the leadership in the spin cycle. They like to pretend they have principles over things like euroscepticism, but every time it comes to the test those principles go up in smoke, and they manage to convince themselves that new reason X, Y or Z is the reason why it's ok this time, because the big EU stand is just round the next corner.
The opinions of people on here don't matter.
Gove and Hammond (and a couple of others) do.
If Cameron can carry them then he is fine. But they have gone far enough towards BOO that they would be hard pressed to defend something that most of the MPs were uncomfortable with.
Most of the MPs are unprincipled careerists in the Cameron mould. Even if Gove or Hammond did speak out, they wouldn't follow if it threatened their ministerial prospects. And that's assuming they did speak out: there's a damn good chance they'd just go to ground and avoid the media until the storm blew over.
David Davis might cause trouble as of course he has othing to lose... and actually I think Gove might as well. Not sure about Hammond.
Douglas Carswell is beginning to sound statesmanlike. So suppose Farage doesn't get a seat (quite likely) and Carswell retains his (very likely), can you see Farage staying on as UKIP leader in 2015? Nope, me neither. That 3/1 is the real value here.
Agreed audreyanne.3-1 is tempting on Farage.He seems to me to be walking heart-attack material but perhaps I am influenced by his similarity to my brother-in-law who had a similar lifestyle and died of lung cancer at 54.His tobacco addiction took him as many others and was the motivation for me to quit.Farage would do well and be a much better role model if he could even switch to vaping nicotine instead.(BTW I read Cameron is back on the fags).
All the more so given that he has already survived cancer once. I don't know enough about it to make an educated guess but if there is a genetic predisposition to cancer it strikes me that staying away from those things known to enhance the risk seems a good idea.
I rather liked David D until his ego ran off with a unicorn - I've a tweak of narcissism and I'd never provoke a by-election I couldn't lose just to perk up my ego.
After that exploit, I just ignore him.
Except of course he didn't know he couldn't lose it until after he had made his decision. What you see as ego I see as a necessary principled stand. But then I suspect the issue was more important to me than it was to you.
TMZ stuff. That QE2 wasn't totally in charge of her faculties seems as far fetched as OJ Simpson. He was rather good in Capricorn One - a fav flick of mine.
Let's take each one individually: Farage will be gone if he fails to win Thanet S., as such his odds look about right. Cameron will be gone if he loses the next election aka less seats than Labour, as such his odds are too low. Likewise Miliband will be gone if he get less seats than the Tories, as such his odds are too high. Clegg will be out if he loses his seat, his odds look about right.
As for the rest I will have a go: Alan Hope might retire as MRLP leader so his odds are about right. The BoE will never increase interest rates ever again. Boris will still be Mayor until 2016 even if he becomes Tory leader. Osborne to be chancellor still depends on Tories winning most seats. The same applies for Balls for Labour winning most seats.
I adore Ethiopian men with coal dark colouring and almond eyes. They are usually very tall. I find the obsession with anothers preferred types very peculiar. 70 yrs ago we had a film called Gentleman Prefer Blondes
Some guys like girls with a big rack. Are they tittest?
I've been accused twice of being *heightest* by short men. One was white, another black. Both were good looking, successful and well off.
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Crumbs I go out for a walk and some lunch and come back 8 hours later to find that the site is still going on about UKIP. Some of you fellows need to get out more.
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
It's how I would imagine a white supremacist web site would talk about black people
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
Also comparable is the way racists talk of women who date men of a different coloured skin and the way people who defect to UKIP are treated
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
Ghanaian refugee that I went to Uni with said Britain should be ashamed of the Empire and could learn al lot from the way Germany apologise for Hitler etc
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
Defining yourself by who you fancy and making a big deal of it... yes, it's all a bit stupid, and all rather me me me
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30575063
The idea that Cameron is 'just one vote' is frankly ludicrous.
Of course I should also point out that if you do like the Tory party (I don't know if that is the case or not) then Cameron winning will be a disaster for you since he will certainly destroy the party in 2017.
It’s amazing how people’s behaviour towards UKIP is the very same behaviour which they claim to oppose: ignorance, intolerance & aggression.
' Basically the politicians lie, exaggerate the risks of leaving and also the benefits of staying in. This has been going on for decades with big companies threatening to leave'
That won't change whenever we have an in/out referendum.
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
In whatever they do or we do, it is not a zero sum game. There are risks and downsides. There are risks to leaving the EU. I am not sure the upsides warrant them. If we can detach ourselves from the EU with minimal risk there are upsides, but the EU is not going to go away. We will still have to deal with it and in effect there will be little difference to being out to where we are now.
Sadly all we get from anti EU proponents is hysteria. There is very little evidence of any effort to show how the risk can be managed. As far as I can see the closest anyone has come to that is Farage who simply says that he is not bothered if we end up poorer. Indeed his remarks seem to assume we would be.
Oh and the idea that there will be little difference between being in and out of the EU and that any benefits will be outweighed by the problems is just the sort of rubbish I am talking about. It is only spouted by those who are frightened of the public actually deciding we should leave.
Although my question was enabled by the flow of that thread the seed of it actually came from a recent incident in our office - or rather a series of incidents. I believe that we did not handle those events well and we need to do much better next time. I'm going to take your comments further when we next get together for a policy meeting.
Again my sincere thanks.
Much better to have the referendum in 2017 whilst the EU is still in a mess and voters remember that the people telling us it will be disaster to leave are the same people that said it would be a disaster if we didn't join the euro.
'Possible Ebola case' in Glasgow.
I sincerely hope this is not so, Glasgow has had enough tragedy for one Xmas season.
GDP per head is currently 38K USD per head. Whether it falls to 36K USD per head, after leaving the EU, or increases to 40 K per head, is pretty marginal in the scheme of things.
20 Barking
4//7 Boston & Skegness
20 Bromsgrove
16 Dag & Rain Lads 20s
5 Dudley North 20@25s McL
12 Halesown & Rowley Regis
20 Morley & Outwood Lads are 33s
11//2 Newcastle Under Lyme**
8 Plymouth Moor View 16s
5//2 S Bas & E Thurrock 100@20 Up Lads
16 Staffordshire Moorlands
12 Stoke on Trent South
10 Telford £40@25s Lads UP
6//4 Thanet North
4//9 Thanet South 5/2
4//5 Thurrock PP £50@16 £75@16
6 Walsall North Lads are 16s
12 Walsall South
16 West Bromwich West
33 Wolverhampton NE 33s
Plus Clacton and Rochester
10 Bexhill & Battle
50 Birmingham Yardley
20 Bournemouth East
25 Bridgewater & W Somerset
33 Birmingham Northfield
16 Broadland
25 Burton
11//4 Cannock Chase
6 Christchurch
10 Dartford
9//4 Dover
8 East Devon
20 Erith & Thamesmead
3 Folkestone & Hythe
11//8 Great Yarmouth
40 Hastings & Rye
10 Hx & Upm
25 Kingswood
25 Ludlow
12 N Devon McLads 20
40 N Warks Lads are 50s
12 Newton Abbot Lads are 50s
25 Peterborough
25 Poole
20 SE Cornwall McLads ar 33s
20 Solihull
7 Spelthorne
16 Stoke on Trent Central
16 Stoke on Trent North
33 Stourbridge
20 Torridge & W Devon
20 Totnes
40 Wells Lads are 50s
12 West Brom East
14 West Suffolk
20 Aldershot
6 Bognor & Littlehampton
8 Bournemouth West
7//2 Camborne & Redruth
10 Chatham & Aylseford
25 Coventry NW
25 East Surrey
25 Eltham
6 Gill & Rain
12 Harlow
33 Hereford & S Herefordshire Lads are 50s
20 Horsham
16 IoW
50 Luton North
50 N Swindon
25 Norwich N
5 NW Cambs
20 Redditch
25 Reigate
16 S Cambs
3 Sitting bourne & Sheppey
20 Stratford on Avon
10 Wolverhampton SE
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/tX_PLTFW9zbQWN-wkAQ79pw/htmlview
Its not clear to me what you mean by 'all sorts of promises'. The issues will be resolved in an agreement, presumably a treaty. We are in that situation even now anyway in that any new treaty would legally (until the likes of you allow Labour to repeal it) be subject to ratification by a referendum.
Your argument is bogus.
We might also add of course that the 'OUT' people will be making all sorts of promises too, about how rosy life would be out of the EU and how the EU would be only too pleased for some reason to behave as we tell them, to our benefit and their detriment, when we have left. The difference here would be there is no treaty to ratify, only an exit to navigate.
And once again you are being dishonest. No one - and certainly not UKIP - has ever claimed life would be rosy if only we would leave the EU. All they have claimed is that it would be better than it is now.
Of course that doesn't fit with your bigoted agenda so you won't understand it.
The Kippers are playing the long game.
Although a victory for the Cons can give them everything they want, they think that Cam will renege on his promise, that a Cons victory giving them a referendum will be the wrong kind of referendum and that they are aiming for defeat for Cons in 2015, a more Kipper-friendly (Paterson? Rees-Mogg?) Cons leader installed, and then by 2040 a total Kipper victory.
No, neither do I.
Cameron is, by some way, the most Eurosceptic Tory leader for a generation. The entire centre of gravity in the party has shifted towards scepticism.
He's just not a BOOer.
Strangely perhaps for you, if he were to declare after the next election that having won he realises that he does not have enough time and that he is postponing a referendum until a set date at the end of his next term after a treaty had been ratified then I would have a lot more faith in him. It would be a practical change unforced by the need to win over the electorate and would signal that he was serious about the renegotiation strategy. As it stands he is clearly not serious about meaningful repatriation given the timeline he has set out.
So either Cameron losing the next election - opening up the possibility of a more Eurosceptic leader emerging - or UKIP having sufficient MPs to hold a balance of power and so influence the tone of both the negotiations and the subsequent referendum campaign both offer more hope to me of a positive outcome than Cameron's faux referendum which, in effect, will be on the EU as it is or with the promise of even further integration afterwards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30628349
Fundamentally (please correct me if I am wrong) Kippers believe 3 things:
1. Cameron is incompetent
2. Cameron is a devious power-seeking shyster
3. Cameron is a liar
Now:
1. He has promised a referendum - but he's a liar (3)
2. So he doesn't hold a referendum - which will split the party and result in him losing his job (trust me on this) thereby contradicting (2)
ok:
1. So he holds a referendum
2. But lies about the renegotiation being a success - after all he's an incompetent (so it can't go well) and a liar
3. But he's not very competent so no one believes him
4. And that will split the Tory Party (trust me on that) - and result in him losing his job, thereby contradicting (2)
ok:
1. So he holds a referendum
2. He convinces a majority (I think he needs 2/3) of Tory MPs that the renegotiation has been a success (despite him being incompetent)
3. But the British people are true and honourable
4. Therefore he needs to throw the referendum in some other way (despite being incompetent)
It just doesn't stack up.
Fundamentally, he will do his best to renegotiate and put a case to the public if he believes it is good enough to stay in. The key question is whether he can carry the weight of the party with him - Patterson will always be a BOOer, but if he can convince Gove and Hammond to support the "IN" side that's a pretty good guarantee that it's a decent outcome. Neither of them are shrinking violets who are afraid to say what they believe in
I do believe he is a power seeking shyster and a liar. After all he is a politician and I am of the opinion that those traits are pretty much obligatory for anyone seeking high office. Even those who I might agree with I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.
But they have, to be fair, either influenced or capitalised on the prevailing mood.
The Kippers might do the same. But they are uniquely able to shoot themselves in the foot by ensuring the one thing they (apparently) really really want, they will not get.
Much better to settle into a (noble, important) role as pressure group.
Black Swans anyone?
Fundamentally, if he delays / twists / cheats on the referendum without carrying the majority of his party with him then he will be overthrown.
There are enough serious politicians like Gove and Hammond whose support he needs who would not be afraid to call foul if necessary. And once a politician loses the confidence of his senior colleagues he is done for.
Your claims that Conservatives will remove Cameron if he doesn't hold a referendum or pretends an unsuccessful repatriation is successful simply don't hold water. Just look at how Tories on here responded to the leadership claiming they'd halved the EU shakedown, or the promises for a big plan on limiting EU migration that ended up as some benefits tinkering. Conservatives will argue that night is day or black is white once they've been given a line from CCHQ.
Their first and foremost concern is defending the leadership in the spin cycle. They like to pretend they have principles over things like euroscepticism, but every time it comes to the test those principles go up in smoke, and they manage to convince themselves that new reason X, Y or Z is the reason why it's ok this time, because the big EU stand is just round the next corner.
Gove and Hammond (and a couple of others) do.
If Cameron can carry them then he is fine. But they have gone far enough towards BOO that they would be hard pressed to defend something that most of the MPs were uncomfortable with.
Evens Miliband is not.
If I had just come from Mars I would think UKIP were the main opposition party and Liblabcon were in a rather bad tempered coalition as the governing party.
FWIW I think a result where either labour or tories would need a four party coalition to win a majority of three and were forced into a grand coalition with each other as a result would be UKIPs ideal outcome, because then UKIP would be the opposition party defacto if not de jure and Liblabcon would be a rather obvious reality.
He's offering seemingly generous odds of 18/1 against them winning between 6-10 seats North of the Border and 7/1 against them winning between 11-15 seats there.
For those of a nervous disposition, it's possible to combine these two bands by staking 29.6% and 70.4% respectively to achieve a winning return of 4.63/1 should either element prove successful.
Part 2 of the pilot youtube.com/watch?v=OeF72AKMNcY
This site may be the most-read political blog it is also well on the way to becoming the most boring.
Same thought process, they are just scared of losing control
I see the odds on 0-5 & 6-10 have already been cut. IMO they're still value @ 33/1 & 12/1 respectively.
They are either the target of vicious abuse, or are said to be too good for them
This is a political (betting) site so people talk about....politics. Including UKIP.
They are the silver sixpence in the christmas pudding: interesting, everyone likes to find and discuss it, but actually doesn't affect the whole christmas pudding experience in the slightest.
(Better analogy.)
I laughed myself inside out at their outrage - they shouted about their insecurity by proxy. Sometimes I think a bit of self-examination is a good thing. Both those guys should spend less time finding fault with others than finding time to feel better about themselves.
Then she went on a dating website and specified no Asian or Chinese men as they're all a bit short
What does that mean?
For a very small place - the Brits have a place in history like the Romans
As an addendum I wonder whether KIP will maintain their position of not whipping elected representatives. I hope they do but have more doubts.
OK - I was trying to say that it was no surprise that people talk about UKIP on PB.com and that this was not an obsession but was part of talking about politics because despite the fact that they are making a horlicks of it, UKIP are trying to be a political party.
Your turn now.
"other people who are abused for threatening cultural hegemony?"
Que?
Some guys like girls with a big rack. Are they tittest?
It's ludicrous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_and_Ideological_State_Apparatuses
http://tapnewswire.com/2014/12/a-great-way-to-avoid-consequences-of-itccs-conviction-queen-reported-as-suffering-from-alzheimers/
After that exploit, I just ignore him.
Farage will be gone if he fails to win Thanet S., as such his odds look about right.
Cameron will be gone if he loses the next election aka less seats than Labour, as such his odds are too low.
Likewise Miliband will be gone if he get less seats than the Tories, as such his odds are too high.
Clegg will be out if he loses his seat, his odds look about right.
As for the rest I will have a go:
Alan Hope might retire as MRLP leader so his odds are about right.
The BoE will never increase interest rates ever again.
Boris will still be Mayor until 2016 even if he becomes Tory leader.
Osborne to be chancellor still depends on Tories winning most seats.
The same applies for Balls for Labour winning most seats.