My girlfriend who is a migrant but is excitedly looking forward to voting for the first time (she acquired her british passport in the last 5 years) declared that she was voting SNP after the debates.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
There was a comment many threads back - they seem to come thick and fast these days - that two seats were won in May 2010 at odds of 10 or even 20. Does anyone know which ones they were?
Yeah, I asked this. Matthew Wall of Swansea University has a research paper suggesting that two UK seats were won at those odds on Betfair. I don't think there was an answer, but without any memories of the markets at all, I would speculate they were Redcar plus one, perhaps Belfast East or Montgomery.
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.
To be honest, after being on a yo-yo ride on Labour's chances over the past couple of weeks, I've now sunk back to the SouthamObserver levels of pessimism about their chances. Ed needed a "game-changer" last night, but he just didn't have the guts to say something that stood out and would leave an impression on people, and a murky draw just isn't good enough for him at this stage. Best case scenario for Labour is to limit the scale of the defeat so that they have a platform to win 2020.
Labour must also get enough seats to stop the Tories governing with a de facto majority. Five years of rolling back the state and handing it over to ineffectual private sector providers focused on squeezing margins, screwing users and employees, and delivering dividends is not a happy prospect.
My girlfriend who is a migrant but is excitedly looking forward to voting for the first time (she acquired her british passport in the last 5 years) declared that she was voting SNP after the debates.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
There was a comment many threads back - they seem to come thick and fast these days - that two seats were won in May 2010 at odds of 10 or even 20. Does anyone know which ones they were?
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
Yes, except in this instance, it was not a case of Farage failing to prepare himself or being sloppy. He consciously and deliberately used that example to sustain his arguments on the NHS. He must have thought this would lead to an A+ result.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
The Syriza of the North.
Floater is well named, what a log
As usual, an insult rather than a counter argument. Well done, bitter man.
Why bother countering your drivel. You only insulted Sturgeon and made a juvenile comment that every policy she espouses is economically illiterate. How could anyone counter such an idiotic , banal , half witted , stupid post. Bitter twisted Little Londoner does not like Sturgeon or Scotland , hold the press. Did you make that up whilst emptying bins.
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
The Syriza of the North.
Floater is well named, what a log
As usual, an insult rather than a counter argument. Well done, bitter man.
Why bother countering your drivel. You only insulted Sturgeon and made a juvenile comment that every policy she espouses is economically illiterate. How could anyone counter such an idiotic , banal , half witted , stupid post. Bitter twisted Little Londoner does not like Sturgeon or Scotland , hold the press. Did you make that up whilst emptying bins.
Part of my post was complimentary to Nicola as it happens. I like Scotland, have plenty of Scottish friends, don't know enough about Sturgeon (except what I saw last night) to form much of an opinion.
Still no-counter argument, I note, just an extended insult. You remind me of another Malcolm (he of The Thick of It variety).
I agree that Farage has not done anything to win over any of the vast army of people who think UKIP are racist/weirdos, but that ship sailed a long time ago, if it was ever in port in the first place. Their goal now is surely just to win back as many of the 18-20% of people who were saying UKIP when they were at their peak late last year.
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.
That's if you believe the stereotype of the Golly-toting kipper who expresses the racial views of Himmler when they've had a few sherries. There are some loonies like that -stereotypes always have some basis, but the vast majority are simply profoundly unhappy with the way the country is being run on many levels and feel UKIP represents the best opportunity to break from that. 50% of the population being B.O.O. and 1% or thereabouts of MPs representing that opinion is not acceptable.
There may be an issue, but I don't agree with focussing discontent on a national platform on the victims of AIDS, deliterious to the NHS as their presence may be. The perpetrators of child abuse -absolutely. AIDS victims not so much.
I think it's lamentable that Ms Sturgeon scored so highly in the debates. I can only put it down to her admitted polished presentational skills. However, the policies she was advocating for the UK were economically illiterate - they might work in Holyrood with the £5bn annual Barnett bung, but they would be catastrophic if applied to the UK as a whole.
The Syriza of the North.
Floater is well named, what a log
As usual, an insult rather than a counter argument. Well done, bitter man.
Why bother countering your drivel. You only insulted Sturgeon and made a juvenile comment that every policy she espouses is economically illiterate. How could anyone counter such an idiotic , banal , half witted , stupid post. Bitter twisted Little Londoner does not like Sturgeon or Scotland , hold the press. Did you make that up whilst emptying bins.
Part of my post was complimentary to Nicola as it happens. I like Scotland, have plenty of Scottish friends, don't know enough about Sturgeon (except what I saw last night) to form much of an opinion.
Still no-counter argument, I note, just an extended insult. You remind me of another Malcolm (he of The Thick of It variety).
There was nothing to reply to , you made an illiterate comment that her policies were economically illiterate. I could say you are illiterate and it would be as banal, ie I do not know you or your policies. Tell me which policies were illiterate and why and I may agree that you are not just a thick Little Englander who hates Sturgeon and Scotland.
Miliband: Won on points, narrowly, and that's just my opinion so can see why others would call it otherwise. Had a competent message, but was a tad overrehearsed.
Cameron: The loser, but not because of his performance on the night. The problem Dave has is that his impassioned schtick has been heard so many times before that it doesn't work any more. He looks a fraud saying stuff that should've played well. It seems madness, but if Osborne could do media without looking like he uses his own farts as an aftershave he'd be a better leader than Dave.
Clegg: A similar problem, the one thing everyone knows about Clegg is that he's 'good in a debate'. He did what he does, but was unconvincing and looked tired of it. His attacks on Dave seemed half-hearted.
Farage: Had a Buster Douglas night. Went in as the guy who'd duff up the mainstream parties, came out the guy with weird opinions about AIDS.
Bennett: Is this the best the radical left can do? She's dreadful, but mainly because of her party's inherent contradictions. If there's one reason to support Ken Loach and TUSC, it's to consign the greens to the electoral dustbin.
Sturgeon: I thought she looked weird but apparently did well. May well benefit from reverse Ed Miliband syndrome in that as she's not standing for PM the fact she's an obsessive doesn't matter one jot. Great at getting away with talking over others. The SNP also benefit from being a leftist party whose utopia is tangible in principle.
Wood: I think she's made me a sexist. Didn't have a clue what she was on about, but found her oddly hot. Kind of summed up Wales, plausible, lovely, but on the margins.
Miscalaneous points: The lighting suited Ed, flatmate who didn't understand a word said he looked like Sylvester Stallone (?!!?!).
The big one may well be the challengers debate - Cameron looks very much a tired, busted flush, hence the uninspiring competence v chaos message. The key will be whether Miliband can become the focal point of opposition, or as has been the case so far, everyone who can't stand the government does so in their own way.
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
I thought Farage missed a significant opportunity last night.
The smart play was to whistle gently to the base whilst reaching out to potential switchers. Instead he opted to whistle squarci throughout the debate as if his base needed shoring up which it didn't.
My girlfriend who is a migrant but is excitedly looking forward to voting for the first time (she acquired her british passport in the last 5 years) declared that she was voting SNP after the debates.
When I pointed out that this was not possible, she switched allegiance to the Greens.
I might do also (just for a laugh) so there might be a bit of value in the 100/1 for the greens in Greenwich and Woolwich.
There was a comment many threads back - they seem to come thick and fast these days - that two seats were won in May 2010 at odds of 10 or even 20. Does anyone know which ones they were?
Lembits old seat must have been one, surely?
Wonder if there's a chance of that going back. It's happened before there, Glyn Davies seems to been quiet lately (I think) and the new LD candidate is a much more likely MP for a rural Welsh seat than Lembit!
I am surprised by the disappointed response by some Ukip supporters to Farage's HIV comments and to their comrades who sympathise with those comments. It seems clear from outside first that immigration control is the main rallying cry of Ukip rather than Europe exit, and second that immigration control is often a carapace for race fears. It's not surprising at all that Farage would consider it a winning tactic - not to win a majority, but to win the demographic that might vote Ukip. Racism is not just a problem of the skin-headed 0.01%, it's a bundle of opinions that most people feel to some small or large extent.
WRT Edward II I just laughed out loud after reading a comment from someone (who claims to be writing a doctorate) that he couldn't have been the father of Edward III, because "he spent his entire marriage making out with Piers Gaveston."
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.
I thought Farage missed a significant opportunity last night.
The smart play was to whistle gently to the base whilst reaching out to potential switchers. Instead he opted to whistle squarci throughout the debate as if his base needed shoring up which it didn't.
I'm not sure Farage does subtle. Have you seen his speeches to the EU parliament?
I agree that Farage has not done anything to win over any of the vast army of people who think UKIP are racist/weirdos, but that ship sailed a long time ago, if it was ever in port in the first place. Their goal now is surely just to win back as many of the 18-20% of people who were saying UKIP when they were at their peak late last year.
There aren't a vast army of people that think that, there's a small and vocal minority that think that, and a vast army of people who think their friends and colleagues think that. It's a social unnacceptability that is cynically and utterly shamelessly whipped up by the main parties and mainstream press. That's why UKIP must take every opportunity possible to create 'events' where they can rise above this noise and demonstrate the necessity of a UKIP vote.
Mr. G, bah, humbug! Nor shall I watch that nonsense American film about how 'they' stole the enigma machine [and were kind enough to do it before they actually joined the war].
MalcG Unless there is an EU out vote with Scotland voting In, 10-15 years is probably most likely, the second vote in Quebec was 15 years after the first for comparison. Though of course as I pointed out many SNP voters ironically want an EU out vote
I agree that Farage has not done anything to win over any of the vast army of people who think UKIP are racist/weirdos, but that ship sailed a long time ago, if it was ever in port in the first place. Their goal now is surely just to win back as many of the 18-20% of people who were saying UKIP when they were at their peak late last year.
On balance, I think being rated the best by c.20% of the viewers was a decent result for Farage. The counter-argument is that he could have done even better. But, I think he'll be satisfied.
Miliband: Won on points, narrowly, and that's just my opinion so can see why others would call it otherwise. Had a competent message, but was a tad overrehearsed.
Cameron: The loser, but not because of his performance on the night. The problem Dave has is that his impassioned schtick has been heard so many times before that it doesn't work any more. He looks a fraud saying stuff that should've played well. It seems madness, but if Osborne could do media without looking like he uses his own farts as an aftershave he'd be a better leader than Dave.
Clegg: A similar problem, the one thing everyone knows about Clegg is that he's 'good in a debate'. He did what he does, but was unconvincing and looked tired of it. His attacks on Dave seemed half-hearted.
Farage: Had a Buster Douglas night. Went in as the guy who'd duff up the mainstream parties, came out the guy with weird opinions about AIDS.
Bennett: Is this the best the radical left can do? She's dreadful, but mainly because of her party's inherent contradictions. If there's one reason to support Ken Loach and TUSC, it's to consign the greens to the electoral dustbin.
Sturgeon: I thought she looked weird but apparently did well. May well benefit from reverse Ed Miliband syndrome in that as she's not standing for PM the fact she's an obsessive doesn't matter one jot. Great at getting away with talking over others. The SNP also benefit from being a leftist party whose utopia is tangible in principle.
Wood: I think she's made me a sexist. Didn't have a clue what she was on about, but found her oddly hot. Kind of summed up Wales, plausible, lovely, but on the margins.
Miscalaneous points: The lighting suited Ed, flatmate who didn't understand a word said he looked like Sylvester Stallone (?!!?!).
The big one may well be the challengers debate - Cameron looks very much a tired, busted flush, hence the uninspiring competence v chaos message. The key will be whether Miliband can become the focal point of opposition, or as has been the case so far, everyone who can't stand the government does so in their own way.
Not possible for Ed to win on points as Clegg had already knocked him out.
Mr. G, bah, humbug! Nor shall I watch that nonsense American film about how 'they' stole the enigma machine [and were kind enough to do it before they actually joined the war].
Mr. F, never watched Braveheart, and shan't. It sounds as horrendous as a biography of Hannibal written by Mr. Eagles.
It's on a par with Ydoethur having to correct those of his pupils who think that Richard III was a saint, Lady Margaret Beaufort murdered the Princes in the Tower, and Elizabeth Woodville and her mother had magical powers.
I agree with those who argue that EM would benefit from the anti-Austerity message put forward by Nicola Sturgeon. The trouble is ,though, that 95% of the electorate are pretty well illiterate when it comes to macroeconomics and see the economy in pure accountancy terms. Last night would have been far too late to begin promoting this mssage but it s such a missed opportunit that Labour has over the past few years failed to draw on history to make the anti-austerity case. In particular when Harold Macmillan informed the nation in his speech at Bedford in the late 1950s that ‘we have never had it so good’ the Debt to GDP ratio was 105%. He saw no need to pursue a policy of austerity – on the contrary it had been phased out half a decade earlier when the Debt/GDP figure was well over 200%.Why then do we
Mr. F, never watched Braveheart, and shan't. It sounds as horrendous as a biography of Hannibal written by Mr. Eagles.
It's on a par with Ydoethur having to correct those of his pupils who think that Richard III was a saint, Lady Margaret Beaufort murdered the Princes in the Tower, and Elizabeth Woodville and her mother had magical powers.
Mr. F, never watched Braveheart, and shan't. It sounds as horrendous as a biography of Hannibal written by Mr. Eagles.
MD, you should it was a good fictional film and a laugh, no worse than most Hollywood depictions of Ye olde Englande, Scotland , Ireland etc
Braveheart would be the worst film of all time if it weren't for Mel Gibson's other abomination, The Patriot. Even Apocalypto, which was acceptable cinematically, appeared to have the Mayans confused with TinTin.
I would remind everyone the Coalition Economic record is decidedly pitiful over the last 5 years based on mathematical analysis.
In 1996, in last recession under John Major Conservative government the unemployment rate was 8.5%. When the Labour government came into government in 1997 it was 7.5%.
During the height of Credit Crunch, under Gordon Brown leadership is only reached 8%. Therefore, the Credit Crunch can be viewed as typical UK recession, in terms of employment. The length recession can viewed, on the objective facts and empirical evidence as prolonged recovery caused by the foolish Austerity Program of cuts to governmental expenditures, which delayed the recovery, until George Osborne pursued policy options akin to a return to a Credit Expansionary Bubble in assets, primarily focused on property assets.
Over the last 5 years, the Trade Union negotiated pay cuts to salaries, below the rate of RPI (inflation) of about 6%. These pay cuts allowed more people to be employed, simply by the variables of businesses hiring more stuff at the same expenditure on salaries as they did at the height of recession in 2008.
As an example, 29.4 million people are in employment, whose wages are lowered by 6.% via deflation of salaries compared to Retail Price Index (inflation). This allows more people to be employed, this allows business or the government to employ an extra 1.764 million people for the same total expenditure on salaries as the did in compared to 2008 or 2010. This largely explains why the tax income today is remaining as bad as it is in most recessions during the post war era.
1,764,000 divide by 5 (years) divided by 365 (days) equals 966 jobs created each day over the Coalition governments term in public office. Everyone is poorer, and it pays considerably less to be employment then when the Labour Party was in government.
Any idiot can cut wages and hire extra staff, but this is not why people elect political parties to govern a country - they elect a government to be paid more wages from their current employment. This is not governance, it meaningless governance, which delivers nothing (a bit like diet drinks, zero calories, yet has the aesthetic aspects of being nice to taste), it massive con-job on the UK electorate.
Comments
How could anyone counter such an idiotic , banal , half witted , stupid post.
Bitter twisted Little Londoner does not like Sturgeon or Scotland , hold the press. Did you make that up whilst emptying bins.
Still no-counter argument, I note, just an extended insult. You remind me of another Malcolm (he of The Thick of It variety).
There may be an issue, but I don't agree with focussing discontent on a national platform on the victims of AIDS, deliterious to the NHS as their presence may be. The perpetrators of child abuse -absolutely. AIDS victims not so much.
Miliband: Won on points, narrowly, and that's just my opinion so can see why others would call it otherwise. Had a competent message, but was a tad overrehearsed.
Cameron: The loser, but not because of his performance on the night. The problem Dave has is that his impassioned schtick has been heard so many times before that it doesn't work any more. He looks a fraud saying stuff that should've played well. It seems madness, but if Osborne could do media without looking like he uses his own farts as an aftershave he'd be a better leader than Dave.
Clegg: A similar problem, the one thing everyone knows about Clegg is that he's 'good in a debate'. He did what he does, but was unconvincing and looked tired of it. His attacks on Dave seemed half-hearted.
Farage: Had a Buster Douglas night. Went in as the guy who'd duff up the mainstream parties, came out the guy with weird opinions about AIDS.
Bennett: Is this the best the radical left can do? She's dreadful, but mainly because of her party's inherent contradictions. If there's one reason to support Ken Loach and TUSC, it's to consign the greens to the electoral dustbin.
Sturgeon: I thought she looked weird but apparently did well. May well benefit from reverse Ed Miliband syndrome in that as she's not standing for PM the fact she's an obsessive doesn't matter one jot. Great at getting away with talking over others. The SNP also benefit from being a leftist party whose utopia is tangible in principle.
Wood: I think she's made me a sexist. Didn't have a clue what she was on about, but found her oddly hot. Kind of summed up Wales, plausible, lovely, but on the margins.
Miscalaneous points: The lighting suited Ed, flatmate who didn't understand a word said he looked like Sylvester Stallone (?!!?!).
The big one may well be the challengers debate - Cameron looks very much a tired, busted flush, hence the uninspiring competence v chaos message. The key will be whether Miliband can become the focal point of opposition, or as has been the case so far, everyone who can't stand the government does so in their own way.
The smart play was to whistle gently to the base whilst reaching out to potential switchers. Instead he opted to whistle squarci throughout the debate as if his base needed shoring up which it didn't.
PS : Mind you I am past caring now, given the spineless vote last time it is unlikely in near future.
Braveheart has a lot to answer for.
I'm not sure Farage does subtle. Have you seen his speeches to the EU parliament?
Bennett 2
Cameron 5
Clegg 6
Farage minus 10 ( what a disgusting racist bigot he is )
Miliband 5
Sturgeon 7
Wood 3
new thread
In 1996, in last recession under John Major Conservative government the unemployment rate was 8.5%. When the Labour government came into government in 1997 it was 7.5%.
During the height of Credit Crunch, under Gordon Brown leadership is only reached 8%. Therefore, the Credit Crunch can be viewed as typical UK recession, in terms of employment. The length recession can viewed, on the objective facts and empirical evidence as prolonged recovery caused by the foolish Austerity Program of cuts to governmental expenditures, which delayed the recovery, until George Osborne pursued policy options akin to a return to a Credit Expansionary Bubble in assets, primarily focused on property assets.
Over the last 5 years, the Trade Union negotiated pay cuts to salaries, below the rate of RPI (inflation) of about 6%. These pay cuts allowed more people to be employed, simply by the variables of businesses hiring more stuff at the same expenditure on salaries as they did at the height of recession in 2008.
As an example, 29.4 million people are in employment, whose wages are lowered by 6.% via deflation of salaries compared to Retail Price Index (inflation). This allows more people to be employed, this allows business or the government to employ an extra 1.764 million people for the same total expenditure on salaries as the did in compared to 2008 or 2010. This largely explains why the tax income today is remaining as bad as it is in most recessions during the post war era.
1,764,000 divide by 5 (years) divided by 365 (days) equals 966 jobs created each day over the Coalition governments term in public office. Everyone is poorer, and it pays considerably less to be employment then when the Labour Party was in government.
Any idiot can cut wages and hire extra staff, but this is not why people elect political parties to govern a country - they elect a government to be paid more wages from their current employment. This is not governance, it meaningless governance, which delivers nothing (a bit like diet drinks, zero calories, yet has the aesthetic aspects of being nice to taste), it massive con-job on the UK electorate.