Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Farage’s biggest mistake was to duck the Eastleigh by elect

124»

Comments

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    antifrank said:

    Will the Conservatives, now that they have an overall majority, seek to oust John Bercow from the Speaker's chair? Or did their manoeuvre just before Parliament went into recess ensure that sufficient numbers of Tory backbenchers will kybosh such an attempt?

    It would be petty and vindictive in the extreme if they did. I hope there are enough back benchers with enough sense to prevent such a move.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    Messina on pollsters... http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/
    Advice to the pollsters

    Where does Messina think the polling went wrong? He reels off a list of the errors: ‘One, a lot of them are using a 2010 view of the electorate. Two, especially in some of them, they weren’t naming the candidates in the seats and I assume that is a recipe to get it absolutely wrong because some incumbents do really well. Three, we were doing much, much bigger sample sizes than what they were doing. Four, we were doing a mix of online and traditional phone calls … and I think that no one was doing that.’ Traditionally in Britain, pollsters split methods — YouGov stick to online polling while ICM stick to telephone canvasing. But, as Messina puts it, only the Tories had this ‘kind of that mix and there certainly wasn’t anyone doing modelling of the electorate’.

    Another factor was Ukip. If Messina is right about the success of basing his polling on a more recent modelling of the electorate, were disaffected Labour and Tory voters included in his planning? ‘Yes and that’s something that CTF really has spent a lot of time of and did a really great job,’ he says. ‘Mark Textor is a brilliant pollster and he spent a bunch of time kind of looking at that.’

    Messina hopes that the pollsters will ‘start to figure out why they got it wrong in real time’. But his past experiences in America suggest it may or may not happen. ‘Unfortunately in the US we had the same in 2012 and we did a similar study but nothing has really changed and rather than just trying to cover your own butts,’ he says.

    ‘I hope you sit down and have a real methodological discussion about how you can get this stuff right. It was so clear, especially for the entire last month, that they were wrong but none of them wanted to hear about it. So the first thing to fixing a problem is admitting you have one and I hope they do a little bit better job than the US have done on that.’
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    There is a simple solution for Carswell. Run for party leader and then build UKIP into the sort of party he wants it to be and less of a one-man party / cult.

    That option does not exist for the next 4 years or so since Farage was re-elected leader last October.
    Carswell isn't greedy, hence his MPs expenses record (praised by Martin Bell in his book) and his attitude to the Short money.
    Farge is greedy, see his MEP's expenses and his attitude to the Short money.
    It's our money and the electorate aren't particularly forgiving over such things.
    Not often I agree with you but in this case you are right ... to some extent anyway. There is the question of what Farage is doing with the money. In the past he got into trouble not for spending it on himself like the MPs troughers but for using it to fund the campaign against the EU. In the end both are wrong because the money is public money which has been assigned for a particular purpose and to use it for something else, however great the cause, is simply not on. To say that that is personal greed though is I think incorrect.
    Well I didn't say it was 'personal' greed in this case.
    However Nigel does like his money. Hence, for his party, the tie up with a far right party to get Euro funds.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/20/ukip-does-deal-with-far-right-to-save-european-grouping
    Also personally:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-leaders-wife-is-paid-with-public-money-it-is-revealed-following-his-denial-on-googleboxs-steph-and-dom-meet-nigel-farage-9928490.html
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Plato said:

    Hasn't that given the Tories months to set the media narrative for their contentious stuff?

    I'm a great believer in overrunning your opponents before they've put their trousers on - this looks like a gift to CCHQ.

    Scott_P said:

    @NCPoliticsUK: New #Labour leader will be announced on 12th September according to the Press Association H/T @benrileysmith

    There's no guarantee that it will be anywhere near as decorous a contest as the last one either:

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/13/will-labour-survive-a-drawn-out-leadership-contest/

    But from a betting perspective a longer contest probably favours the unions. Perhaps it will become a recruitment war - between recruiting more actual members to vote for the neo-Blairites and registering more affiliated voters to vote for whoever the unions back.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    Prime Minister David Cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

    Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

    We must become intolerant of intolerance.

    We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

    We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

    We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
    Then prepare for civil war

    The people this nonsense is aimed at ARE British. Why should their idea of being British be worth less than anyone elses?
    Another good question, you are on fire this morning.

    They are indeed British. But they are a minority and the majority of Britons still get to determine what is important to us and what kind of society we want to live in. That is indeed, in the main, a passively tolerant society but it is one that has to accessible to all Brits not just some of us.
    The majority should not get to persecute the minority even if they do vehemently disagree with them. No one (on here at least) is suggesting we should let them do exactly as they want regardless of the law. But the clear statement of intent (if that quote is correct) is that they should be targeted and harassed by the State even if they are operating within the law. That is wrong.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    antifrank said:

    Will the Conservatives, now that they have an overall majority, seek to oust John Bercow from the Speaker's chair? Or did their manoeuvre just before Parliament went into recess ensure that sufficient numbers of Tory backbenchers will kybosh such an attempt?

    It would be petty and vindictive in the extreme if they did. I hope there are enough back benchers with enough sense to prevent such a move.
    They're not going to. Though I would assume Bercow understands that he is effectively on notice.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    isam said:

    Or bomb the tube/shoot cartoonists/behead a soldier

    A few criminals is not a civil war.
    Cyclefree said:

    Free speech does not permit people to incite violence against others. We have seen people standing with banners outside Westminster Cathedral saying "Behead those who insult Islam". That's not free speech. That's incitement to violence. And nothing was done. And it's about time something is done about those who preach violence. Being some sort of cleric does not - and should not - give you a free pass to preach violence against others.

    Incitement to violence is already illegal and should be prosecuted already.
    DavidL said:

    I agree that freedom of speech is important. I find the increasing criminalisation of speech on the grounds that it is "offensive" troubling.

    But what I understand the government to be doing is taking the argument to those extremists who use that right to undermine our values and attack those who do not fit into their world viewpoint.

    Do you support the freedom to say that a particular person caught in adultery should be stoned or killed? To say that those who have left the Muslim faith should be killed? That British women should not be able to dress as they like or go where they like or speak to who they like, or marry who they like?

    This is tricky territory but I think there is a lot the government can do without going too far.

    To be devil's advocate the bible repeatedly says that a person caught in adultery should be stoned or killed, should we criminalise the bible?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Latest Betfair leader prices

    CU 2.72
    AB 4.4
    YC 7.2
    LK 8.6
    TH 14
    SC 20

    50 bar

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    ToriesForBurnham™ are very happy Labour has decided to allow the unions plenty of time to rig the vote sign up affiliate members for a full and fair election
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302

    isam said:

    Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?

    On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest

    The function of Short money is " to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions."
    Carswell is correct, he doesn't need £650,000 each year to support one MP.
    Where does that quote come from? parliament.uk simply says it is to help with costs - http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/short-money/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    ToriesForBurnham™ are very happy Labour has decided to allow the unions plenty of time to rig the vote sign up affiliate members for a full and fair election

    Those treacherous types at Labour Uncut have decided to join the campaign - whatever they say, Labour ignore...

    http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/12/whatever-the-question-andy-burnham-is-not-the-answer/
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    Margaret Hodge is not standing again to chair Public Account Select Committee.

    Crick says Meg Hillier will stand. Full house will vote on the Chair but only Labour MPs can stand
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    antifrank said:

    The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.

    Is the strategic problem that they don't have enough money?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302
    An interesting EDM from 2006:

    "That this House notes that the Leader of the Opposition received £4,206,057.88 in Short money in the year 2005-06 for policy development; further notes that the Opposition as yet has not published policies on key issues confronting the UK; reminds the Leader of the Opposition that taxpayers' money is given for a particular purpose; and proposes that if that purpose is not forthcoming within the next three months the Leader of the Opposition should refund the money."

    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2006-07/463
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm very happy with that - though I'd prefer Rachel Reeves... unfortunately she was too smart to mud wrestle this time.
    Scott_P said:

    ToriesForBurnham™ are very happy Labour has decided to allow the unions plenty of time to rig the vote sign up affiliate members for a full and fair election

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Margaret Hodge is not standing again to chair Public Account Select Committee.

    Crick says Meg Hillier will stand. Full house will vote on the Chair but only Labour MPs can stand

    Good!

    Hodge was a major self-serving hypocrite. The committee has a role to play but it should not all be about one individual.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Surely not attracting enough donations is THE strategic problem, not what they spend it on.

    antifrank said:

    The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.

    Is the strategic problem that they don't have enough money?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Alistair said:

    Troublemakers

    /twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/598414649453912064


    Perhaps they were clapping the rUk unemployment figures ?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    I would say a 'tad' is an understatement. It was arrogant and stupid. But that doesn't change the fact unfortunately that as it stands I don't think he can be got rid of until the end of his term. I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of the UKIP rule book to know if there is a way to challenge him but given he seems to have the overwhelming support of the party members I am not sure it would do much good anyway.

    Do I detect an undertone of simmering discontent? You could always get some anti-aircraft weapons from Kim Jong Un after he has used them on a few more people who disagree with him.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    An interesting EDM from 2006:

    "That this House notes that the Leader of the Opposition received £4,206,057.88 in Short money in the year 2005-06 for policy development; further notes that the Opposition as yet has not published policies on key issues confronting the UK; reminds the Leader of the Opposition that taxpayers' money is given for a particular purpose; and proposes that if that purpose is not forthcoming within the next three months the Leader of the Opposition should refund the money."

    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2006-07/463

    All bar one of the signatures on that were Labour - I'd have assumed from just reading it that it was Tory point scoring.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    TGOHF said:

    Alistair said:

    Troublemakers

    /twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/598414649453912064


    Perhaps they were clapping the rUk unemployment figures ?
    The number of people out of work in the January to March period fell to 1.83 million, down 35,000 from the previous quarter and the lowest for seven years.

    It is also the seventh month in a row that the rate of regular pay increases has outstripped the prevailing annual rate of inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32719779
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Plato said:

    Surely not attracting enough donations is THE strategic problem, not what they spend it on.

    antifrank said:

    The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.

    Is the strategic problem that they don't have enough money?
    I think the point is that Labour make out like the modern Tory party are TEA Party style extremists on the far right of the Republicans.

    The fact that a Democrat can work with the Conservatives shows that to be false. Labour under Miliband were far, far, far to the left of the Democrats. Going further left is not the right strategic move.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    antifrank said:

    The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.

    Is the strategic problem that they don't have enough money?
    What do you think they commissioned the #EdStone for? The bidding is going to be stratospheric. My money is on Guido pipping Lynton Crosby to the prize.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Monbiot suggest that sacking Arnie Graf cost Labour the election and they need to be more like Brazillian farmers...

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/leftwing-labour-latin-america-grassroots-revolution-spin
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    LibDems should be burning Lynton's effigy according to this > http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/
    Killing the Lib Dems

    Focusing on the Liberal Democrats in the South West was one key strategy that resulted in a Tory majority. Messina points out that one pollster even had the Lib Dems winning twenty seats. ‘You really have to not be paying attention to get that,’ he said. Was the decision to target the Lib Dems a strategy based on his data or from Crosby’s vision for the campaign? ‘Lynton was definitely the inspiration behind that strategy and believed very, very deeply in it and really understood it and our data was just used to help that,’ he says. ‘At his request we built a model of the seats of everyone we felt could switch between us and the Lib Dems and had our field team contact those people directly and that clearly worked — but it was definitely Lynton’s call.’
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    TGOHF said:

    Monbiot suggest that sacking Arnie Graf cost Labour the election and they need to be more like Brazillian farmers...

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/leftwing-labour-latin-america-grassroots-revolution-spin

    The aftermath is proving to be very amusing indeed
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    An interesting EDM from 2006:

    "That this House notes that the Leader of the Opposition received £4,206,057.88 in Short money in the year 2005-06 for policy development; further notes that the Opposition as yet has not published policies on key issues confronting the UK; reminds the Leader of the Opposition that taxpayers' money is given for a particular purpose; and proposes that if that purpose is not forthcoming within the next three months the Leader of the Opposition should refund the money."

    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2006-07/463

    All bar one of the signatures on that were Labour - I'd have assumed from just reading it that it was Tory point scoring.
    Well it's from 2006 so I think it may have been Labour point scoring :-) What goes around...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    I would say a 'tad' is an understatement. It was arrogant and stupid. But that doesn't change the fact unfortunately that as it stands I don't think he can be got rid of until the end of his term. I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of the UKIP rule book to know if there is a way to challenge him but given he seems to have the overwhelming support of the party members I am not sure it would do much good anyway.

    Do I detect an undertone of simmering discontent? You could always get some anti-aircraft weapons from Kim Jong Un after he has used them on a few more people who disagree with him.
    Only if you have been living in a cellar for the last 4 years.

    I have always been crictical of Farage and openly said I would prefer someone else to run the party. This is simply another example of why I have believed that for many years and have always voted against him as leader.

    I do like to think it sets me apart from the party fanatics on here who seem to think the only purpose of politics is to keep their chosen party in power permanently irrespective of principles or beliefs.

    Sadly there seem to be more of those from the Tory party than any other.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Plato said:

    I'm very happy with that - though I'd prefer Rachel Reeves... unfortunately she was too smart to mud wrestle this time.

    Scott_P said:

    ToriesForBurnham™ are very happy Labour has decided to allow the unions plenty of time to rig the vote sign up affiliate members for a full and fair election

    I'm not so sure about Rachel.

    This sounds awful, but I just can't relate to her at all. She has that robotic politician thing going on. Liz, Chukka and Andy do the whole *human* thing a lot better - Liz in particular.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Messina sums up the Labour campaign. I'd no idea what it was either - nice to see it wasn't my imagination that it was so threadbare.
    But Messina does not have many positive things to say about Labour’s messaging either. ‘To this day I can’t tell you what Labour’s message was other than I guess we don’t like the Tories. But until the famous Ed Rock or Ed Stone, you sort of had no idea what they were running on and when you are trying to do that five days before, you’re in deep, deep trouble.’
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    Prime Minister David Cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

    Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

    We must become intolerant of intolerance.

    We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

    We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

    We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
    I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely the job of the government to punish forced marriage, FGM, electoral fraud, intimidation of voters etc., regardless of whether or not this is a "cultural matter".

    It is certainly not the job of government to punish opinions, even if these are deemed "extreme" by the government of the day. Most right wing posters here hold opinions that are considered "extreme" "offensive" "sexist" "racist" on the far left. How would we like it if a future left-wing government started to bar us from propagating our opinions on the ground of "extremism."
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015

    antifrank said:

    The fact that Jim Messina can hop from working for David Cameron to Hillary Clinton and can imagine returning again pretty much encapsulates Labour's current strategic problems.

    Is the strategic problem that they don't have enough money?
    It will be interesting to know how much they paid the whole Crosby and Messina team, there was just more than those 2.

    I know the Tories only paid Crosby £100k for Boris first campaign, and I think they were paying him £500k a year personally to work basically full time for them (another crucial difference, CCHQ had these guys basically full time).
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    SNP should get 2 select committees chairs
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Memo to MPs don't fall asleep in cabinet:

    MPs were told Mr Hyon was killed on 30 April by anti-aircraft fire in front of an audience of hundreds, the Yonhap news agency reports.
    It said Mr Hyon had fallen asleep during an event attended by Kim Jong-un and had not carried out instructions.
    The news comes weeks after the reported execution of 15 senior officials.

    'Anti aircraft fire'!!
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32716749
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I would say a 'tad' is an understatement. It was arrogant and stupid. But that doesn't change the fact unfortunately that as it stands I don't think he can be got rid of until the end of his term. I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of the UKIP rule book to know if there is a way to challenge him but given he seems to have the overwhelming support of the party members I am not sure it would do much good anyway.

    Do I detect an undertone of simmering discontent? You could always get some anti-aircraft weapons from Kim Jong Un after he has used them on a few more people who disagree with him.
    Only if you have been living in a cellar for the last 4 years.

    I have always been crictical of Farage and openly said I would prefer someone else to run the party. This is simply another example of why I have believed that for many years and have always voted against him as leader.

    I do like to think it sets me apart from the party fanatics on here who seem to think the only purpose of politics is to keep their chosen party in power permanently irrespective of principles or beliefs.

    Sadly there seem to be more of those from the Tory party than any other.
    Whereas I think we've seen plenty of Tories be openly critical of Cameron.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    isam said:

    Whether Carswell is right or not it is hardly greedy of Ukip to accept money they are offered. Are the greens giving theirs back? Do any other parties?

    On the other hand, it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest

    The function of Short money is " to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions."
    Carswell is correct, he doesn't need £650,000 each year to support one MP.
    Where does that quote come from? parliament.uk simply says it is to help with costs - http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/short-money/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited May 2015

    SNP should get 2 select committees chairs

    Do they get to choose which ones?

    I can imagine they'd be pretty pissed if they were assigned to the stationary allocation select committee.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pong said:

    isam said:

    ...it would be worth the money lost to have the moral high ground over the rest

    But that doesn't *matter* any more. There's a massive referendum coming up. You know, the one that has always been denied to you. It's no good sitting on your high horse, wearing a union jack and sneering at the *corrupt establishment* for the next two years - you've got to get moving!

    You don't need to win another election ever again.
    I wouldn't make the mistake of confusing me with the kind of person that wields a Union Jack or flag of any kind.. Or the kind that thinks a referendum is the be all and end all


  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    SNP should get 2 select committees chairs

    Guessing Scotland (if theres a select comittee on it), and it would have to be something non-devolved, which might be problematic.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Moonbat is providing much amusement here. Latin America is a template for victory for Labour?

    HAHAHAHHHAAH

    TGOHF said:

    Monbiot suggest that sacking Arnie Graf cost Labour the election and they need to be more like Brazillian farmers...

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/13/leftwing-labour-latin-america-grassroots-revolution-spin

    The aftermath is proving to be very amusing indeed
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    What do you think they commissioned the #EdStone for? The bidding is going to be stratospheric. My money is on Guido pipping Lynton Crosby to the prize.

    Surely antifrank will be able to outbid everyone else?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328

    isam said:

    Or bomb the tube/shoot cartoonists/behead a soldier

    A few criminals is not a civil war.
    Cyclefree said:

    Free speech does not permit people to incite violence against others. We have seen people standing with banners outside Westminster Cathedral saying "Behead those who insult Islam". That's not free speech. That's incitement to violence. And nothing was done. And it's about time something is done about those who preach violence. Being some sort of cleric does not - and should not - give you a free pass to preach violence against others.

    Incitement to violence is already illegal and should be prosecuted already.

    The point, though, is that it hasn't been. Out of fear, maybe, or not taking it seriously or out of a misguided "respect" for a different "culture". Who cares? So long as now we do start prosecuting incitements to violence.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    I would say a 'tad' is an understatement. It was arrogant and stupid. But that doesn't change the fact unfortunately that as it stands I don't think he can be got rid of until the end of his term. I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of the UKIP rule book to know if there is a way to challenge him but given he seems to have the overwhelming support of the party members I am not sure it would do much good anyway.

    Do I detect an undertone of simmering discontent? You could always get some anti-aircraft weapons from Kim Jong Un after he has used them on a few more people who disagree with him.
    Only if you have been living in a cellar for the last 4 years.
    I think you have mistaken me for Tim.... ;)

    If I had a cellar I would fill it with shoes and be like a northern Imelda Marcos :)

    I have always been crictical of Farage and openly said I would prefer someone else to run the party. This is simply another example of why I have believed that for many years and have always voted against him as leader.

    I come and go from here as you know so I miss a lot

    I do like to think it sets me apart from the party fanatics on here who seem to think the only purpose of politics is to keep their chosen party in power permanently irrespective of principles or beliefs.

    Indeed

    Sadly there seem to be more of those from the Tory party than any other.

    I think that Labour are just as guilty, maybe even more so. Many of them seem to think that being socialist confers a righteousness that I just do not see in other parties (although the SNP seems to have a version of it)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    Prime Minister David Cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

    Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

    We must become intolerant of intolerance.

    We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

    We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

    We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
    Then prepare for civil war

    The people this nonsense is aimed at ARE British. Why should their idea of being British be worth less than anyone elses?
    Another good question, you are on fire this morning.

    They are indeed British. But they are a minority and the majority of Britons still get to determine what is important to us and what kind of society we want to live in. That is indeed, in the main, a passively tolerant society but it is one that has to accessible to all Brits not just some of us.
    To coin a phrase. 'To enact legislation of this kind is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder'
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Oh, I loathe Ms Reeve's nowadays. Her voice is like fingernails on a blackboard.

    I saw her YEARS ago at a Labour Conf with Andrew Neil and she was great - warm, normal and funny - then she became a robot.

    I can't believe they're the same person.
    Pong said:

    Plato said:

    I'm very happy with that - though I'd prefer Rachel Reeves... unfortunately she was too smart to mud wrestle this time.

    Scott_P said:

    ToriesForBurnham™ are very happy Labour has decided to allow the unions plenty of time to rig the vote sign up affiliate members for a full and fair election

    I'm not so sure about Rachel.

    This sounds awful, but I just can't relate to her at all. She has that robotic politician thing going on. Liz, Chukka and Andy do the whole *human* thing a lot better - Liz in particular.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Financier said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Why ed was not crap, by Sunny Hundal:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/he-may-be-gone-but-heres-why-milibands-legacy-will-continue-to-define-labour/

    "On the day of Ed Miliband’s resignation, I texted one of his closest aides to ask why he wouldn’t stay on as caretaker while a new leader was chosen. The reply came back fast: “He was just too tired and had taken on too much for his family. He’s a really good man, Sunny. The likes of which we just don’t see in politics.” "

    So what if he had won? An overtired and out-of-his-depth PM on day 1?

    If he'd won, he wouldn't have been depressed about losing. In fact, probably all PMs are tired on day one, because they've been campaigning for weeks and then stayed up all night watching the results.
    But it's how you cope with tiredness and depression. Not, ideally, by ignoring your own party's best interests and sodding off to Ibiza because you can afford to.
    If he has taken the kids out of school I hope he gets fined £60 a day like other people are.
    No his children have been left at home - surely you would have thought that he would have wanted to spend time with them?
    I would certainly have thought so, but he does have some strange family priorities.
    You're all being pretty unfair.

    If I had just been publicly interviewed and rejected for my life's ambition & seen my career come crashing down about my ears, I'd hope my wife would get the grandparents over to look after the kids and take me away for a weekend to lick my wounds in private.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    What do you think they commissioned the #EdStone for? The bidding is going to be stratospheric. My money is on Guido pipping Lynton Crosby to the prize.

    Surely antifrank will be able to outbid everyone else?
    I have been designated a kulak by the domestic politburo and my resources have been confiscated for the public good.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Somehow missed this back when we were discussing Cameron insisting on having the Greens in the debates:
    "In 2002, [Jim Messina] ran Baucus's 2002 re-election campaign. Messina "refused to let Baucus attend any debate that didn’t include a third-party candidate whose skin had turned blue from drinking an anti-infection solution"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Messina_(political_staffer)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Miss Plato, did her voice change, or just her [public] character?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    There is truth there from Messina on Labour. But there is some mythology creeping in on exactly how good the Tory campaign was.

    Arguably the Tories were not much better than Labour on this specific point, standing on a more of the same (whatever that is) or anti Labour-SNP ticket.

    And having received three Tory leaflets, I think their targeting was not perfect.
    Plato said:

    Messina sums up the Labour campaign. I'd no idea what it was either - nice to see it wasn't my imagination that it was so threadbare.

    But Messina does not have many positive things to say about Labour’s messaging either. ‘To this day I can’t tell you what Labour’s message was other than I guess we don’t like the Tories. But until the famous Ed Rock or Ed Stone, you sort of had no idea what they were running on and when you are trying to do that five days before, you’re in deep, deep trouble.’
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    SNP should get 2 select committees chairs

    Guessing Scotland (if theres a select comittee on it), and it would have to be something non-devolved, which might be problematic.
    Defence would be amusing.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    TBH, whilst I'm very keen on a US style free speech thingy - I feel here in the UK it's all gone too far and we need to reset what's acceptable from the Islamist crowd.

    Until we do that - we can't move forward as a moderate secular society. The well was poisoned by Labour apologists and sections of the media/law enforcement.

    Once we're back to 0/0 we can all have our say. Until then we're scared as a society to say what we think from the right rather than the left.
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    Prime Minister David Cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

    Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

    We must become intolerant of intolerance.

    We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

    We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

    We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
    I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely the job of the government to punish forced marriage, FGM, electoral fraud, intimidation of voters etc., regardless of whether or not this is a "cultural matter".

    It is certainly not the job of government to punish opinions, even if these are deemed "extreme" by the government of the day. Most right wing posters here hold opinions that are considered "extreme" "offensive" "sexist" "racist" on the far left. How would we like it if a future left-wing government started to bar us from propagating our opinions on the ground of "extremism."
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Somehow missed this back when we were discussing Cameron insisting on having the Greens in the debates:

    "In 2002, [Jim Messina] ran Baucus's 2002 re-election campaign. Messina "refused to let Baucus attend any debate that didn’t include a third-party candidate whose skin had turned blue from drinking an anti-infection solution"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Messina_(political_staffer)

    That's awesome!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690

    I would say a 'tad' is an understatement. It was arrogant and stupid. But that doesn't change the fact unfortunately that as it stands I don't think he can be got rid of until the end of his term. I am not familiar enough with the minutiae of the UKIP rule book to know if there is a way to challenge him but given he seems to have the overwhelming support of the party members I am not sure it would do much good anyway.

    Do I detect an undertone of simmering discontent? You could always get some anti-aircraft weapons from Kim Jong Un after he has used them on a few more people who disagree with him.
    Only if you have been living in a cellar for the last 4 years.

    I have always been crictical of Farage and openly said I would prefer someone else to run the party. This is simply another example of why I have believed that for many years and have always voted against him as leader.

    I do like to think it sets me apart from the party fanatics on here who seem to think the only purpose of politics is to keep their chosen party in power permanently irrespective of principles or beliefs.

    Sadly there seem to be more of those from the Tory party than any other.
    Whereas I think we've seen plenty of Tories be openly critical of Cameron.
    Not meaning to be funny Phil, particularly as you are not one of those who comes over as a party fanatic, but the Tories who criticise Cameron do seem to be pretty few and far between.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely the job of the government to punish forced marriage, FGM, electoral fraud, intimidation of voters etc., regardless of whether or not this is a "cultural matter".

    It is certainly not the job of government to punish opinions, even if these are deemed "extreme" by the government of the day. Most right wing posters here hold opinions that are considered "extreme" "offensive" "sexist" "racist" on the far left. How would we like it if a future left-wing government started to bar us from propagating our opinions on the ground of "extremism."
    Of course one shouldn't punish opinions, unless those opinions amount to a criminal act e.g threatening murder.

    If I were to threaten, for example, Mrs S Bercow with death (on account of her alleged adultery), I would expect to be prosecuted. Ditto if I were to threaten someone who no longer followed the religion of their parents.

    As for the third example - preventing someone else from exercising their rights e.g. by forcing them to marry someone against their will or keeping them indoors etc can also amount to various offences.

    But we are entitled to - indeed I would argue obliged to - take the argument to those extremists who have, for far too long, had a free pass to peddle an extremist version of Islam and put it forward as the only version of Islam, the only one which should be followed by fellow Muslims without challenge and who have used the implied (or actual) threat of violence to get away with it. That challenge needs to be made and vigorously, as much for the benefit of those Muslims who do not want either to be tarred as extremists or do not accept that what these people are peddling represents Islam at all as for the rest of us.

    For example, there was an interesting programe on the radio not long ago about those Muslims who chose not to be Muslims being completely shunned by their families and friends and, in some cases, feeling threatened. That is unacceptable. Freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom from religion are fundamental freedoms. If the local imam goes round telling people that anyone who leaves the Muslim religion should be killed are we supposed to ignore that? Threatening death to people for exercising their rights as British citizens is wrong. And we should take the right action to deal with this.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    antifrank said:

    I have been designated a kulak by the domestic politburo and my resources have been confiscated for the public good.

    Ah, my commiserations. In the Nabavi household negotiations are still continuing. I am hopeful of salvaging something for the Claret Fund.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,137
    On the subject of licking wounds after electoral wipeout, Tim O'Brien's brilliant, brilliant book, In the Lake of the Woods, includes a leading character who has lost badly and is completely devastated and seeks calm, well, in the woods.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Lake_of_the_Woods

    Charles said:

    Financier said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Why ed was not crap, by Sunny Hundal:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/he-may-be-gone-but-heres-why-milibands-legacy-will-continue-to-define-labour/

    "On the day of Ed Miliband’s resignation, I texted one of his closest aides to ask why he wouldn’t stay on as caretaker while a new leader was chosen. The reply came back fast: “He was just too tired and had taken on too much for his family. He’s a really good man, Sunny. The likes of which we just don’t see in politics.” "

    So what if he had won? An overtired and out-of-his-depth PM on day 1?

    If he'd won, he wouldn't have been depressed about losing. In fact, probably all PMs are tired on day one, because they've been campaigning for weeks and then stayed up all night watching the results.
    But it's how you cope with tiredness and depression. Not, ideally, by ignoring your own party's best interests and sodding off to Ibiza because you can afford to.
    If he has taken the kids out of school I hope he gets fined £60 a day like other people are.
    No his children have been left at home - surely you would have thought that he would have wanted to spend time with them?
    I would certainly have thought so, but he does have some strange family priorities.
    You're all being pretty unfair.

    If I had just been publicly interviewed and rejected for my life's ambition & seen my career come crashing down about my ears, I'd hope my wife would get the grandparents over to look after the kids and take me away for a weekend to lick my wounds in private.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I didn't notice her voice as she was such fun and so normal - she joshed with Mr Neil and I really rather liked her - hence remembering her later.

    I can only assume she was processed into the horror she now is on telly.

    Miss Plato, did her voice change, or just her [public] character?

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited May 2015
    Jonathan said:

    There is truth there from Messina on Labour. But there is some mythology creeping in on exactly how good the Tory campaign was.

    Arguably the Tories were not much better than Labour on this specific point, standing on a more of the same (whatever that is) or anti Labour-SNP ticket.

    And having received three Tory leaflets, I think their targeting was not perfect.

    Plato said:

    Messina sums up the Labour campaign. I'd no idea what it was either - nice to see it wasn't my imagination that it was so threadbare.

    But Messina does not have many positive things to say about Labour’s messaging either. ‘To this day I can’t tell you what Labour’s message was other than I guess we don’t like the Tories. But until the famous Ed Rock or Ed Stone, you sort of had no idea what they were running on and when you are trying to do that five days before, you’re in deep, deep trouble.’

    I don't think the Tory "traditional" campaign (as we think about it) was very good, but I think you might be confusing what the local Tories were up to i.e sticking the standards leaflets through your door, with their shall we say CCHQ real targets.

    What I think the Tories were doing, and unless you were a target you probably wouldn't know much about it, was they were targeting people in specific marginals many many months ago and targeting them consistently in a number of different ways. This was mostly below the water line, with occasion bits surfacing e.g. the revelation that the Tories were spending a lot of money on Facebook in very specific places.

    Crosby says in the long video linked in the Guardian, that basically you don't change anybodies mind in the last month of the campaign. It is a very slow long process of engagement, and the last month is just about ensuring those people are motivated to get out to the polling station..it isn't about last minute changing of their mind. Basically, all this wait until people see Ed on the TV, he is much better than you think, and he was better and the very low bar, but its too late, you can't convince people in any significant proportion to change their mind based upon that.
  • DavidL said:

    I agree that freedom of speech is important. I find the increasing criminalisation of speech on the grounds that it is "offensive" troubling.

    But what I understand the government to be doing is taking the argument to those extremists who use that right to undermine our values and attack those who do not fit into their world viewpoint.

    Do you support the freedom to say that a particular person caught in adultery should be stoned or killed? To say that those who have left the Muslim faith should be killed? That British women should not be able to dress as they like or go where they like or speak to who they like, or marry who they like?

    This is tricky territory but I think there is a lot the government can do without going too far.

    Suppose a person were to say that Parliament should pass a law criminalising adultery. He may be wrong, but unless we are to prohibit advocating social and political change by peaceful and lawful means, he must have the right to say it. The same must apply to someone who argues for the reintroduction of capital punishment for murder. It must therefore be permissible to support capital punishment for adultery, apostasy or heresy. Likewise, it must be permissible to support restrictions on how women or men behave, or on their ability to marry.

    I would remind you that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,690
    Plato said:

    TBH, whilst I'm very keen on a US style free speech thingy - I feel here in the UK it's all gone too far and we need to reset what's acceptable from the Islamist crowd.

    Until we do that - we can't move forward as a moderate secular society. The well was poisoned by Labour apologists and sections of the media/law enforcement.

    Once we're back to 0/0 we can all have our say. Until then we're scared as a society to say what we think from the right rather than the left.

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    Prime Minister David Cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

    Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

    We must become intolerant of intolerance.

    We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

    We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

    We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
    I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely the job of the government to punish forced marriage, FGM, electoral fraud, intimidation of voters etc., regardless of whether or not this is a "cultural matter".

    It is certainly not the job of government to punish opinions, even if these are deemed "extreme" by the government of the day. Most right wing posters here hold opinions that are considered "extreme" "offensive" "sexist" "racist" on the far left. How would we like it if a future left-wing government started to bar us from propagating our opinions on the ground of "extremism."
    Completely disagree Plato.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Charles said:

    Financier said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Why ed was not crap, by Sunny Hundal:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/he-may-be-gone-but-heres-why-milibands-legacy-will-continue-to-define-labour/

    "On the day of Ed Miliband’s resignation, I texted one of his closest aides to ask why he wouldn’t stay on as caretaker while a new leader was chosen. The reply came back fast: “He was just too tired and had taken on too much for his family. He’s a really good man, Sunny. The likes of which we just don’t see in politics.” "

    So what if he had won? An overtired and out-of-his-depth PM on day 1?

    If he'd won, he wouldn't have been depressed about losing. In fact, probably all PMs are tired on day one, because they've been campaigning for weeks and then stayed up all night watching the results.
    But it's how you cope with tiredness and depression. Not, ideally, by ignoring your own party's best interests and sodding off to Ibiza because you can afford to.
    If he has taken the kids out of school I hope he gets fined £60 a day like other people are.
    No his children have been left at home - surely you would have thought that he would have wanted to spend time with them?
    I would certainly have thought so, but he does have some strange family priorities.
    You're all being pretty unfair.

    If I had just been publicly interviewed and rejected for my life's ambition & seen my career come crashing down about my ears, I'd hope my wife would get the grandparents over to look after the kids and take me away for a weekend to lick my wounds in private.

    Cosy picture of defeated 'normal' Ed and wife with kids. Next day kids are left at home and the parents shoot off on holiday. To Ibiza!.
    And people wonder why Labour lost?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Because of the way Vanilla is working this morning, I won't quote.

    But, in response, I'd say absolutely, family members are entitled to shun those of their members who convert to a different religion. It's unpleasant, but they are acting well within their rights.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    What do you think they commissioned the #EdStone for? The bidding is going to be stratospheric. My money is on Guido pipping Lynton Crosby to the prize.

    Surely antifrank will be able to outbid everyone else?
    Carswell could! He is not Short of a bob or two.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I have been referring to Reeves as Robot Reeves for a long time now..she is the epitome of the party line moron.Not running in the election is the wisest thing she has ever done.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Maybe it's because we recognise he's a winner for us. I don't like his greenies stuff and moaned to him on email back in 2010.

    But he's gained my team over 130 seats and changed the perception of the Tories for the first time in decades into a Maj Party.

    Why would most of us complain as centre-right voters? There were lots of PBTories who moaned about the campaign and Crosby and and and - then they shut up or accepted they were wrong.



    Not meaning to be funny Phil, particularly as you are not one of those who comes over as a party fanatic, but the Tories who criticise Cameron do seem to be pretty few and far between.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,721
    Ms Cyclefree, on the subject of being shunned for leaving “the religion” have you ever talked to a lapsed Plymouth Brother (or sister)? Or Jehovah’s Witness?

    Grant you they don’t tal;k about “death on earth”, but .......
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302
    Plato said:

    I didn't notice her voice as she was such fun and so normal - she joshed with Mr Neil and I really rather liked her - hence remembering her later.

    I can only assume she was processed into the horror she now is on telly.

    Miss Plato, did her voice change, or just her [public] character?

    Are you sure you're not making the same mistake as Philip Hammond of confusing Rachel Reeves with Liz Kendall?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,032
    Plato said:

    LibDems should be burning Lynton's effigy according to this > http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/

    Killing the Lib Dems

    Focusing on the Liberal Democrats in the South West was one key strategy that resulted in a Tory majority. Messina points out that one pollster even had the Lib Dems winning twenty seats. ‘You really have to not be paying attention to get that,’ he said. Was the decision to target the Lib Dems a strategy based on his data or from Crosby’s vision for the campaign? ‘Lynton was definitely the inspiration behind that strategy and believed very, very deeply in it and really understood it and our data was just used to help that,’ he says. ‘At his request we built a model of the seats of everyone we felt could switch between us and the Lib Dems and had our field team contact those people directly and that clearly worked — but it was definitely Lynton’s call.’
    That is a really interesting interview with Messina and it will almost certainly pay to revisit it after we have heard the polling industry's excuses/ review of what they did wrong. Taken at face value it blows any excuses about late swings, late decision makers etc out of the water. He says they were confident they were over 300 more than a month out.

    Our pollsters have a lot to learn.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    I have been referring to Reeves as Robot Reeves for a long time now..she is the epitome of the party line moron.Not running in the election is the wisest thing she has ever done.

    My private name for Hazel Blears was "Hazel the Robot".
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    When looking at a piece of legislation, it's important to consider how it could be used against you, in the future, if the complexion of the government should change.

    One could certainly envisage a situation in which conservative Christians, opponents of the EU, atheists, orthodox Jews, opponents of immigration could all be subject to restrictions on the grounds of "extremism."
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328

    Financier said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Why ed was not crap, by Sunny Hundal:

    http://labourlist.org/2015/05/he-may-be-gone-but-heres-why-milibands-legacy-will-continue-to-define-labour/

    "On the day of Ed Miliband’s resignation, I texted one of his closest aides to ask why he wouldn’t stay on as caretaker while a new leader was chosen. The reply came back fast: “He was just too tired and had taken on too much for his family. He’s a really good man, Sunny. The likes of which we just don’t see in politics.” "

    So what if he had won? An overtired and out-of-his-depth PM on day 1?

    If he'd won, he wouldn't have been depressed about losing. In fact, probably all PMs are tired on day one, because they've been campaigning for weeks and then stayed up all night watching the results.
    But it's how you cope with tiredness and depression. Not, ideally, by ignoring your own party's best interests and sodding off to Ibiza because you can afford to.
    If he has taken the kids out of school I hope he gets fined £60 a day like other people are.
    No his children have been left at home - surely you would have thought that he would have wanted to spend time with them?
    Maybe they think he's a tosser as well?

    I don't like making personal comments about other posters. But that comment is not nice. Really. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The Tories canvassed me in Eastbourne 3 months before the GE - I said I was a Party member and they never stuffed bumpf through the door or knocked me up again.

    I then got a regular stream of emails asking for help here, in Lewes and Hastings.

    It felt like a very tight campaign. No one from the LDs called bar bumpf stuffing.



    I don't think the Tory "traditional" campaign (as we think about it) was very good, but I think you might be confusing what the local Tories were up to i.e sticking the standards leaflets through your door, with their shall we say CCHQ real targets.

    What I think the Tories were doing, and unless you were a target you probably wouldn't know much about it, was they were targeting people in specific marginals many many months ago and targeting them consistently in a number of different ways. This was mostly below the water line, with occasion bits surfacing e.g. the revelation that the Tories were spending a lot of money on Facebook in very specific places.

    Crosby says in the long video linked in the Guardian, that basically you don't change anybodies mind in the last month of the campaign. It is a very slow long process of engagement, and the last month is just about ensuring those people are motivated to get out to the polling station..it isn't about last minute changing of their mind. Basically, all this wait until people see Ed on the TV, he is much better than you think, and he was better and the very low bar, but its too late, you can't convince people in any significant proportion to change their mind based upon that.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    DavidL said:

    Plato said:

    LibDems should be burning Lynton's effigy according to this > http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/jim-messina-interview-how-the-pollsters-got-it-wrong-and-why-labour-lost/

    Killing the Lib Dems

    Focusing on the Liberal Democrats in the South West was one key strategy that resulted in a Tory majority. Messina points out that one pollster even had the Lib Dems winning twenty seats. ‘You really have to not be paying attention to get that,’ he said. Was the decision to target the Lib Dems a strategy based on his data or from Crosby’s vision for the campaign? ‘Lynton was definitely the inspiration behind that strategy and believed very, very deeply in it and really understood it and our data was just used to help that,’ he says. ‘At his request we built a model of the seats of everyone we felt could switch between us and the Lib Dems and had our field team contact those people directly and that clearly worked — but it was definitely Lynton’s call.’
    That is a really interesting interview with Messina and it will almost certainly pay to revisit it after we have heard the polling industry's excuses/ review of what they did wrong. Taken at face value it blows any excuses about late swings, late decision makers etc out of the water. He says they were confident they were over 300 more than a month out.

    Our pollsters have a lot to learn.

    I don't think need to even take it at face value, there were specific leaks of turn of the year cross over and February / March Tories pulling away. The 300+ and the 316+ figures were also leaked, so unlike the Labour guy, they aren't even saying well we knew, but we didn't tell anybody, it was actually out in the public domain.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2015
    Here we see the complete madness and obvious flaws of allowing uncontrolled immigration, pretending there would be no problems, ignoring and castigating anyone who warned there would be.

    Imagine being a 39 yr old Muslim in tower hamlets. You have been brought up in an area almost wholly dominated by other Muslims, few people speak English, road signs are in Bengali. The government of the country invade Islamic countries and then threaten to prosecute anyone, but between the lines 'any Muslim', who even thinks extreme thoughts.

    Why would you accept that as ok? You are British by birth, have grown up in a place called Britain and accepted the values of your entire community, who are for the most part British.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Quite sure. I'd never heard of Liz Kendall until last week.

    Plato said:

    I didn't notice her voice as she was such fun and so normal - she joshed with Mr Neil and I really rather liked her - hence remembering her later.

    I can only assume she was processed into the horror she now is on telly.

    Miss Plato, did her voice change, or just her [public] character?

    Are you sure you're not making the same mistake as Philip Hammond of confusing Rachel Reeves with Liz Kendall?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870
    Plato said:

    TBH, whilst I'm very keen on a US style free speech thingy - I feel here in the UK it's all gone too far and we need to reset what's acceptable from the Islamist crowd.

    Until we do that - we can't move forward as a moderate secular society. The well was poisoned by Labour apologists and sections of the media/law enforcement.

    Once we're back to 0/0 we can all have our say. Until then we're scared as a society to say what we think from the right rather than the left.

    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    Why would this not be an objective rather than something that had been going on for too long?

    'For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'

    Prime Minister David Cameron

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3079018/PM-fast-track-terror-crackdown-Powers-close-fanatics-mosques-new-Asbos-terrorists-vile-web-clips-blocked.html

    Its a good question but the answer is that if we are to enjoy such a state of affairs we must stand up for our values.

    We must become intolerant of intolerance.

    We must insist that our values such as mutual respect and courtesy are afforded to all of our citizens regardless of race, colour, sex or sexual orientation.

    We must not accept that for various "cultural" or religious reasons some of our citizens are to be deprived of their rights.

    We must make it clear that these are our British standards and those that choose to live here need to abide by them.
    I profoundly disagree. It is absolutely the job of the government to punish forced marriage, FGM, electoral fraud, intimidation of voters etc., regardless of whether or not this is a "cultural matter".

    It is certainly not the job of government to punish opinions, even if these are deemed "extreme" by the government of the day. Most right wing posters here hold opinions that are considered "extreme" "offensive" "sexist" "racist" on the far left. How would we like it if a future left-wing government started to bar us from propagating our opinions on the ground of "extremism."
    Sorry Plato that's exactly what we mustn't do. Free speech except what those awful people over there are saying because what they're saying is beyond the pale. If they're inciting terrorism (which many probably are), there are laws to deal with that. If they aren't, they must be allowed to speak, however unsavoury we find their views. Otherwise where do you stop? People who disagree with abortion to be next? Kippers? People with views unnacceptable to the Common Purpose crowd? Tories eventually?

  • Sean_F said:

    Because of the way Vanilla is working this morning, I won't quote.

    But, in response, I'd say absolutely, family members are entitled to shun those of their members who convert to a different religion. It's unpleasant, but they are acting well within their rights.

    Could any rational person not have grave misgivings if a close relative converted to the Church of Scientology which is now recognised as a religion under English law (see R (Hodkin) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2014] AC 610 (SC))? Whether it would justify shunning them would be another matter, but this relativist notion that no one should be judged on the basis of the superstition they adhere to is preposterous.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    Worth noting that the top comments are universally supportive of the anti-extremism proposals [and that BBC comments are not a scientific measure of public sentiment]:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802

    I'm uneasy about people being prevented from acts which do not contravene any law.

    At the same time, I was dead against the police standing back (even protecting) the march of the maniacs in 2005, and more recently.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    PoliticsHome ‏@politicshome

    .@ZacGoldsmith confirms: "If my party gives a green light for [Heathrow] expansion then I have to trigger a by-election." #bbcdp
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2015
    Plato said:

    Maybe it's because we recognise he's a winner for us. I don't like his greenies stuff and moaned to him on email back in 2010.

    But he's gained my team over 130 seats and changed the perception of the Tories for the first time in decades into a Maj Party.

    Why would most of us complain as centre-right voters? There were lots of PBTories who moaned about the campaign and Crosby and and and - then they shut up or accepted they were wrong.



    Not meaning to be funny Phil, particularly as you are not one of those who comes over as a party fanatic, but the Tories who criticise Cameron do seem to be pretty few and far between.

    Exactly what I have been saying for years. Tories like Cameron because he gets the party called the conservatives in No10... Having v few Conservative policies is neither here nor there
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE · 20s20 seconds ago
    Senior Lib Dem: "We might struggle with the 'winning here' bar charts next time."
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :smiley:
    antifrank said:

    Jim Pickard ‏@PickardJE · 20s20 seconds ago
    Senior Lib Dem: "We might struggle with the 'winning here' bar charts next time."

  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Jonathan said:

    There is truth there from Messina on Labour. But there is some mythology creeping in on exactly how good the Tory campaign was.

    Arguably the Tories were not much better than Labour on this specific point, standing on a more of the same (whatever that is) or anti Labour-SNP ticket.

    A

    Plato said:

    Messina sums up the Labour campaign. I'd no idea what it was either - nice to see it wasn't my imagination that it was so threadbare.

    But Messina does not have many positive things to say about Labour’s messaging either. ‘To this day I can’t tell you what Labour’s message was other than I guess we don’t like the Tu’re in deep, deep trouble.’
    I don't think the Tory "traditional" campaign (as we think about it) was very good, but I think you might be confusing what the local Tories were up to i.e sticking the standards leaflets through your door, with their shall we say CCHQ real targets.



    Crosby says in the long video linked in the Guardian, that basically you don't change anybodies mind in the last month of the campaign. It is a very slow long process of engagement, and the last month is just about ensuring those people are motivated to get out to the polling station..it isn't about last minute changing of their mind. Basically, all this wait until people see Ed on the TV, he is much better than you think, and he was better and the very low bar, but its too late, you can't convince people in any significant proportion to change their mind based upon that.

    Many of the activists, like good foot soldiers didnt know what they were doing. Just given tasks. For example. A long tradition is to deliver 'pledge' letters before polling, or in the case of those marked down as postal votes, before postal votes land on the doorsteps.

    A pledge letter is simply a letter from the candidate asking for their support. Activists would have been delivering these letters this year, in much the same way. But now there was a new subtlety to it.

    Not everyone was sent the same letter, and the letter was not only from the candidate. Different messages get sent out to different responses to canvassing, but also importantly in regards to other data which marks people down as conservative but weve had no contact, or even people who have liked on facebook.

    An activist could be sending out a dozen different letters, and they wouldnt know.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JoeMurphyLondon: Sadiq Khan announced bid for Mayor of London in @eveningstandard & bashes 'champagne' Boris http://t.co/F0tirvkvGJ
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    For a supposedly clever chap, Mr Khan comes across too often as pretty unintelligent.

    Is there something in the water that effects him and David Lammy as well?

    It's most peculiar.
    Scott_P said:

    @JoeMurphyLondon: Sadiq Khan announced bid for Mayor of London in @eveningstandard & bashes 'champagne' Boris http://t.co/F0tirvkvGJ

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    I wonder which big countries have growing GDP, and low unemployment?

    EU countries will be asked to accept a quota of migrants, officials confirmed today in attempt to deal with the crisis in the Mediterranean.

    The quota will be determined along lines of GDP, population size, unemployment rate and past numbers of asylum seekers and of resettled refugees.

    However no figures for individual countries have yet been released.


    http://www.itv.com/news/story/2015-05-13/britain-set-to-fight-eu-refugee-quotas/
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited May 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @JoeMurphyLondon: Sadiq Khan announced bid for Mayor of London in @eveningstandard & bashes 'champagne' Boris http://t.co/F0tirvkvGJ

    Johnson's done the next Tory candidate no favours, by landing a second MPs job, whilst still Mayor.

    Khan's stance on that stupid river bridge will win over a few voters.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    isam said:

    Plato said:

    Maybe it's because we recognise he's a winner for us. I don't like his greenies stuff and moaned to him on email back in 2010.

    But he's gained my team over 130 seats and changed the perception of the Tories for the first time in decades into a Maj Party.

    Why would most of us complain as centre-right voters? There were lots of PBTories who moaned about the campaign and Crosby and and and - then they shut up or accepted they were wrong.



    Not meaning to be funny Phil, particularly as you are not one of those who comes over as a party fanatic, but the Tories who criticise Cameron do seem to be pretty few and far between.

    Exactly what I have been saying for years. Tories like Cameron because he gets the party called the conservatives in No10... Having v few Conservative policies is neither here nor there
    Pretending that there's no difference between Balls, Miliband, Brown, Burnham ... Or Cameron, Osborne, Gove, May, Hunt etc may make you feel smug but it's untrue. We've significantly changed direction in last few years. I can see Conservative policies getting enacted in the economy, in education, in health ... That we're winning the elections too is a necessary but not sufficient reason for being happy.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,968
    edited May 2015
    Miss Vance, quite.

    Miss Plato, affects*. An 'affect' is when you alter/influence something, an 'effect' is a consequence/event. (The effect of losing the election was to make the Guardian cry. The loss of the election affected the Guardian dramatically).

    It's one of the knottier ones to get right.

    Especially as you can also effect a change. Or affect a change.

    Edited extra bit: the last sentence means to cause and to influence, respectively.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    NEW THREAD
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    isam said:

    Plato said:

    Maybe it's because we recognise he's a winner for us. I don't like his greenies stuff and moaned to him on email back in 2010.

    But he's gained my team over 130 seats and changed the perception of the Tories for the first time in decades into a Maj Party.

    Why would most of us complain as centre-right voters? There were lots of PBTories who moaned about the campaign and Crosby and and and - then they shut up or accepted they were wrong.



    Not meaning to be funny Phil, particularly as you are not one of those who comes over as a party fanatic, but the Tories who criticise Cameron do seem to be pretty few and far between.

    Exactly what I have been saying for years. Tories like Cameron because he gets the party called the conservatives in No10... Having v few Conservative policies is neither here nor there
    Once again you prove that you're an idiot.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,320
    The GE result in Scotland, and now the upcoming Scottish elections next year are just going to add to these uncertainties. So I am not surprised at all that there are real hints that some of the contingency plans put in place by financial services before the Referendum are quietly being implemented. That there is not more media focus in Scotland on the considerable downturn in the North Sea is another shocking failure, one of my neighbours just recently expressed 'surprise' at the sheer scale of the problems facing the North sea Oil&Gas industry as they had only just begun to realise the sheer scale of the job losses.
    DavidL said:

    TGOHF said:

    DavidL said:

    TGOHF said:

    Oh dear - Nats running Scotland

    BBC Scotland News ‏@BBCScotlandNews 3m3 minutes ago
    Unemployment in Scotland rose by 19,000 - to 168,000 - in the three months January-March http://bbc.in/1K5JQOi #ScotlandLive

    Thats awful figures, especially when compared with the UK as a whole.

    The Scottish figures are mainly a reflection of the downturn in employment in the North Sea which is still feeding through the system. Just another illustration of the risks of having an economy so dependent on a single source of wealth not only for government revenues but also for employment.
    That sounds like an excuse David - this is the 3rd or 4th month in a row. Also the zero tolerance drink driving laws (SNP brought in) is killing the hospitality industry.

    Sturg should be getting hauled over the coals for this.
    Well being accused of making excuses for the SNP is a new one for me!

    But the consequences of the downturn in the North Sea are very considerable. Contracts are coming to an end and not being renewed. Investment is right down. Some of the excesses (such as having half the hotel rooms in Aberdeen booked just in case people come onshore unexpectedly) have been cut back. Because of the structure of the industry this has not generated the headline redundancies that other industries might but it has been large and is on going.

    I agree about the drink driving limit. That was a piece of self-inflicted stupidity that we could have done without. Our local publican was telling me it has hit them harder than the smoking ban.

    The other worry is that there are hints that some of the contingency plans put in place by financial services before the Referendum are quietly being implemented. The continuing uncertainty is not good for business. Not at all.
This discussion has been closed.