Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the super-marginals main party GOTV operations will giv

124»

Comments

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100

    I don't know if this has been posted before but a very interesting bit of research by Populus.

    http://www.populus.co.uk/item/When-voters-say-all-parties-are-the-same-theyre-just-complaining-that-other-voters-aren’t-sufficiently-like-them-/

    They come up with 4 fictitious parties with 6 different categories of policy beliefs on Europe, climate change, business, public services, same sex marriage and immigration. Party A is roughly traditional Labour, Party B is Blairite (or current Lib Dem) Party C is Cameron's Tories and D might be Ukip. What polling numbers do they get?

    Party A - 27%
    Party B - 13%
    Party C - 23%
    Party D - 37%

    So the policy mix that corresponds most closely to Cameron and Blair come third and fourth respectively. Party D which takes a tough line on Europe, immigration, wants more business regulation, no equal rights for gay couples and is sceptical about climate change is the most popular and also the overwhelming choice of (85%) Ukip supporters. But does it actually correspond to Ukip? It's worth reading the whole thing but it helps to make sense of quite a few things, particularly when people are asked which other party they would be happy to work with in coalition. The Blairite party B is more popular amongst current Conservative voters than current Labour voters. More Party C (Cameron) supporters would like to work with B (Blairites) than D (Ukip).

    I stand vindicated for my statement that most voters are extremists and that moderates are a minority.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:

    So far he has just run away from any such tough questions.

    I know.

    Hardly a good look. What happened to the "new politics"?

    He bravely ran away...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Hmm. If UKIP are calling for higher benefits that's not going to tempt me their way.

    They only wanted higher benefits for people that have paid into the system for a long time. So more akin to unemployment insurance than benefits.
    Aka not immigrants ?
    The difference between that and the Tory policy being that the immigrants denied benefits would not be unskilled poor people that couldn't live here above the breadline without them
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    So far he has just run away from any such tough questions.

    I know.

    Hardly a good look. What happened to the "new politics"?

    He bravely ran away...
    That's strange, I thought he wrote a widely praised article last Sunday that appeared to run contrary to the perceived Ukip line on immigrants? It was mentioned often enough on here I thought you would have seen it
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Hmm. If UKIP are calling for higher benefits that's not going to tempt me their way.

    They only wanted higher benefits for people that have paid into the system for a long time. So more akin to unemployment insurance than benefits.
    Aka not immigrants ?
    The difference between that and the Tory policy being that the immigrants denied benefits would not be unskilled poor people that couldn't live here above the breadline without them
    I prefer the Con approach of restricting benefits to immigrants and keeping all benefits at a lower level to encourage people back to work . This Kipper "fat cat" benefits and the spare room subsidy are dreadful policies that are wasteful and counter productive. Gordon Brown approach - There is no longer anything right wing about Ukip - not one thing.
  • TGOHF said:

    isam said:

    TGOHF said:

    Socrates said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Hmm. If UKIP are calling for higher benefits that's not going to tempt me their way.

    They only wanted higher benefits for people that have paid into the system for a long time. So more akin to unemployment insurance than benefits.
    Aka not immigrants ?
    The difference between that and the Tory policy being that the immigrants denied benefits would not be unskilled poor people that couldn't live here above the breadline without them
    I prefer the Con approach of restricting benefits to immigrants and keeping all benefits at a lower level to encourage people back to work . This Kipper "fat cat" benefits and the spare room subsidy are dreadful policies that are wasteful and counter productive. Gordon Brown approach - There is no longer anything right wing about Ukip - not one thing.
    Farage is Polly Tonybee in tweed!
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    The Tories poster has been called road to ruin,road to nowhere,road to hell and road to disaster but I am sure artists everywhere are producing the alternatives.I like road to hell but then I'm of an age of Chris Rea.
  • isam said:

    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    So far he has just run away from any such tough questions.

    I know.

    Hardly a good look. What happened to the "new politics"?

    He bravely ran away...
    That's strange, I thought he wrote a widely praised article last Sunday that appeared to run contrary to the perceived Ukip line on immigrants? It was mentioned often enough on here I thought you would have seen it
    Don't bother trying to convice the Tory lunatics Sam. They only see what they want to see and find it impossible to comprehend any concept that hasn't been officially endorsed by the CCHQ. These are the same people who used to laugh about the idea of Labour-Bots during the last Government and yet had morphed into the Tory version with so much as a murmur.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    new thread

This discussion has been closed.