It's a peculiar thing - Kippers were anti EU for ages/socially conservative Bring Back 1950s, and then somehow they got the BNP For Pussies moniker. Now they seem to talk a great deal about immigration.
I don't really know how this all happened. I've some friends in their late 60s/70s who aren't socially conservative - but feel the country has changed too much culturally, and want it stopped. They vote UKIP or reluctantly Tory. Others are ex-Labour and detest multiculturalism/immigration affecting their childrens' chances/education and vote Kipper - these would rather die than vote Tory.
The only political Kipper activist I know is the stereotypical old grumpy man from the hang'em and flog'em school - who's pissed off about everything... Country Gone To The Dogs.
I must say I'm surprised how extreme ukip are still seen as by many. I know several people who are quite open at how horribly racist they are and how terrible it would be anywhere if they won. I'm not inclined to vote for them myself, but they've not struck me as that appreciably different from other parties, but some see them that way.
The vast majority of Ukip are socially conservative, its something that applies equally to plenty of labour voters. Seeing their cosy club threatened the established parties invented expressions like "BNP in blazers", although completely inaccurate to a great extent it worked.
That's what modern politics is all about, smearing opponents as opposed to good governance.
UKIP fills a void in the UK for a socially conservative party.
However, in doing so it repels Eurosceptic libertarians.
Yup, I have no party to vote for. I loathe the EU and I'm not massively bothered by the anti-immigration agenda, but I'm definitely very socially liberal. The Tories are the best fit, but the leadership is too pro-EU for my liking, once Dave is gone I will be voting for a proper sceptic.
I think this is very good analysis by Mike. My only additional point would be that the media (and dare I say it PB) continually seem to play up the role of UKIP in some kind of repeated hope/fear over experience scenario.
UKIP have got to the position they are in by highlighting immigration but I simply don't believe it is an issue that can take them past the point they are at now. I believe they are suffering exactly the effect we saw yesterday in France with FN and I believe it is ultimately a losing strategy.
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
Particularly as the detailed questions reveal that quite of lot of voters can envisage individual scenarios in which they'd want the armed forces to take over.
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
The conclusion - lifted directly from YouGov - quotes the question.......
He'd have a hell of a lot of questions to answer, if he did.
Am all in favour of a free press but sometimes I do wish they'd do their flaming job, do some digging and ask some bloody questions - there are plenty of dots to be joined up and the story is well worth telling - instead of acting like lazy PR agents for whoever turns up with a plausible fairy story.
Fascinating that it is the Daily Mail - who for years campaigned for and trumpeted his release - who are now going "Er...hang on a minute....."
There is so much material out there that, if the papers or the magazines had the wit and the space and were prepared to put in the effort, there would be stuff worth reading instead of the recycled rubbish and predictable opinion pieces and dreary "the perils of middle class life on £150K pa" which form too much of the content in most papers.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
Personally I think UKIP should stop promoting every election as a massive breakthrough moment. They don't have to break the mould, there is a referendum soon, their goal may well be achieved.
I reckon they will radically change after the referendum with a new leader or possibly merge into a new party featuring cons and labs
Success in politics tends to be incremental, rather than based on sudden breakthroughs.
It's a peculiar thing - Kippers were anti EU for ages/socially conservative Bring Back 1950s, and then somehow they got the BNP For Pussies moniker. Now they seem to talk a great deal about immigration.
I don't really know how this all happened. I've some friends in their late 60s/70s who aren't socially conservative - but feel the country has changed too much culturally, and want it stopped. They vote UKIP or reluctantly Tory. Others are ex-Labour and detest multiculturalism/immigration affecting their childrens' chances/education and vote Kipper - these would rather die than vote Tory.
The only political Kipper activist I know is the stereotypical old grumpy man from the hang'em and flog'em school - who's pissed off about everything... Country Gone To The Dogs.
I must say I'm surprised how extreme ukip are still seen as by many. I know several people who are quite open at how horribly racist they are and how terrible it would be anywhere if they won. I'm not inclined to vote for them myself, but they've not struck me as that appreciably different from other parties, but some see them that way.
The vast majority of Ukip are socially conservative, its something that applies equally to plenty of labour voters. Seeing their cosy club threatened the established parties invented expressions like "BNP in blazers", although completely inaccurate to a great extent it worked.
That's what modern politics is all about, smearing opponents as opposed to good governance.
UKIP fills a void in the UK for a socially conservative party.
However, in doing so it repels Eurosceptic libertarians.
Yup, I have no party to vote for. I loathe the EU and I'm not massively bothered by the anti-immigration agenda, but I'm definitely very socially liberal. The Tories are the best fit, but the leadership is too pro-EU for my liking, once Dave is gone I will be voting for a proper sceptic.
There was an interview with David Cameron in the Christmas edition of the Spectator this week. He said that staying in the EU was in our interests *particularly* if we achieve his renegotiation.
A very telling turn of phrase. Jeremy Corbyn will take a job as Prince Charles's butler before Cameron plumps for Leave.
He also said his proudest achievement was gay marriage, and modernising the Conservative Party by pulling it to the centre ground.
At least he's honest but I'll be looking for a candidate who has some fresh thinking and can articulate how we deal with the challenges of the 2020s and 2030s.
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
The conclusion - lifted directly from YouGov - quotes the question.......
Can't you envisage *any* circumstance in which it would be legitimate for the armed forces to take over?
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
Surely, it's a truism that one can envisage circumstances in which it would be proper for the armed forces to take over the powers of government
Of course its entirely possible UKIP voters are more imaginative than others - and perhaps they are less bashful in admitting that imaginativeness.....
However, there is a consistent pattern - from cyclists going through red lights to Military coup d'etat - where UKIP voters are outliers to the rest of the population.
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
Surely, it's a truism that one can envisage circumstances in which it would be proper for the armed forces to take over the powers of government - for example, if a government tried to establish a dictatorship.
Interestingly, according to the same poll, most Conservative voters would favour the armed forces taking over the government if it sought to abolish the monarchy.
It was actively discussed in right-wing circles in the mid-late 1970s.
The problem UKIP, the LDs and to an extent Labour have is trying to position themselves against a Conservative Party which now seems to be the "all things to all people" Party.
Cameron's desperate desire to be liked and his transparent fear of unpopularity has led to inertia and stagnation and Government by "not wanting to upset too many people" or rather Government to keep the Conservative poll rating up.
It's hard for Opposition parties to stake out alternative positions when the Government tries to hold all positions at once. Apart from those areas where there is a clear majority among public opinion for some form of action (Government by opinion poll or focus group), not taking a decision becomes the policy.
We also have the prospective successors to Cameron dancing round the head of their own pin - does any one of them try to break out by publicly endorsing a policy (any policy will do) which will differentiate them from Cameron ? The problem they have is that as long as Cameron is seen as generally being "okay" (competent and trustworthy but fairly ineffective) taking a contrary position is hugely risky.
In effect, we've reached a form of political inertia - the Government coasts along pretending to do a lot but not doing very much at all and certainly nothing to offend its coalition of supporters. Labour has tried to strike out in a different direction but it's not a place where anyone much wants to go and neither the LDs nor UKIP are seen as relevant.
We are 7/60 of the way to the next election so an incredibly long way to go and plenty of time for things to change and perhaps to change very quickly.
I think the mood music and positioning of this government, particularly since September, is very similar to what we would have got had Cameron won a majority back in 2010.
We will never know but it'd have been interesting to see what would have happened in 2015 to such a government assuming a similar rise for UKIP and the SNP (which I think would have happened anyway) and a more or less intact Lib Dems.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
Personally I think UKIP should stop promoting every election as a massive breakthrough moment. They don't have to break the mould, there is a referendum soon, their goal may well be achieved.
I reckon they will radically change after the referendum with a new leader or possibly merge into a new party featuring cons and labs
Success in politics tends to be incremental, rather than based on sudden breakthroughs.
It's a symptom of 24 hr news, and the need for three threads a day maybe...
More and more, people judge everything as death or glory. I try to imagine myself looking at the Wikipedia page in 30 years time and seeing how things developed to avoid this short termism
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
Surely, it's a truism that one can envisage circumstances in which it would be proper for the armed forces to take over the powers of government
Of course its entirely possible UKIP voters are more imaginative than others - and perhaps they are less bashful in admitting that imaginativeness.....
However, there is a consistent pattern - from cyclists going through red lights to Military coup d'etat - where UKIP voters are outliers to the rest of the population.
Conservative voters are outliers, on some issues; current Labour voters are definitely outliers, on quite a lot of issues; Lib Dem voters are outliers on other issues.
The fact is each party appeals to discrete groups of electorate.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm sorry but I'm going to contest that.
Kippers are very enthusiastic and committed campaigners, what they don't have is voting history, therefore the canvassing is very hit and miss in terms of targeting. Postal votes are increasingly a factor, ukip simply have no record of this type of thing.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm no ruthless deselector, but if I were chief whip I'd recommend the deselection of any sitting MP who doesn't maintain a contact rate of at least 30-40%.
That makes a lot a sense to me. Safe seats are not guaranteed to stay safe forever. The population moves, opinion shifts, boundaries are redrawn. At some point we may have a sharp reduction in the number of seats or (gasp) a change of voting system. Parties should be thinking that what is safe now may need to be fought for in 20 years and act accordingly.
On Topic, Labour had the model candidate in Oldham in Jim, a young council leader, centrist politically with a good record of improvement and co-operation in office locally. A potential Cabinet minister if not future party leader. Very difficult to campaign against, as a Conservative I would have probably voted for him.
If they can find a few more like Jim, there may be a good chance Corbyn can hang around to the GE - when people will look at the LotO as a potential PM and deliver a very clear verdict indeed.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm sorry but I'm going to contest that.
Kippers are very enthusiastic and committed campaigners, what they don't have is voting history, therefore the canvassing is very hit and miss in terms of targeting. Postal votes are increasingly a factor, ukip simply have no record of this type of thing.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
Targeted canvassing is where UKIP fall down, and above all, signing people up for postal votes.
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
The conclusion - lifted directly from YouGov - quotes the question.......
Yes, it may do but the question mentions nothing about supporting a military take over merely imagining one. The conclusion states that UKIP supporters would support one, that is pure propaganda unjustified by the question or the data. The fact that it comes from YouGov does not surprise me.
I realise that polls are in many respect the lifeblood of this site but I really do wonder if we are wise to pay them as much attention as we do. The prime, maybe only, reason that so many people thought UKIP were in with a chance at the Oldham by-election was that the polling companies, against common sense, said so. They were wrong, hopelessly wrong. They were wrong over the GE and, worse, we know that they suppressed at least one poll that didn't fit in with their narrative.
In short the polling companies seem to have moved from reporting public opinion to shaping it and from any perspective, especially when it comes to betting, that is not healthy.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
Personally I think UKIP should stop promoting every election as a massive breakthrough moment. They don't have to break the mould, there is a referendum soon, their goal may well be achieved.
I reckon they will radically change after the referendum with a new leader or possibly merge into a new party featuring cons and labs
Success in politics tends to be incremental, rather than based on sudden breakthroughs.
You could say that at the 2001, 2005 & as a consequence of the 2010 election the LD's were achieving success in politics ......
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
The government he was in didn't do it either...! Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm sorry but I'm going to contest that.
Kippers are very enthusiastic and committed campaigners, what they don't have is voting history, therefore the canvassing is very hit and miss in terms of targeting. Postal votes are increasingly a factor, ukip simply have no record of this type of thing.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
At the start of the year we were instructed to get out in our target areas, the response:
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm sorry but I'm going to contest that.
Kippers are very enthusiastic and committed campaigners, what they don't have is voting history, therefore the canvassing is very hit and miss in terms of targeting. Postal votes are increasingly a factor, ukip simply have no record of this type of thing.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
Targeted canvassing is where UKIP fall down, and above all, signing people up for postal votes.
Is there a reason for that? Tower Hamlets First seemed to manage it. Why not UKIP?
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
The conclusion - lifted directly from YouGov - quotes the question.......
Can't you envisage *any* circumstance in which it would be legitimate for the armed forces to take over?
No, because were we in such dire straits the Armed Forces would almost certainly be worse than elected representatives - however poor.
I've lived in a military dictatorship (sheltered, as an expat). For all their faults, democracies win hands down....things like 'rule of law' do better and 'corruption' does worse.
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
The conclusion - lifted directly from YouGov - quotes the question.......
Yes, it may do but the question mentions nothing about supporting a military take over merely imagining one. The conclusion states that UKIP supporters would support one, that is pure propaganda unjustified by the question or the data. The fact that it comes from YouGov does not surprise me.
I realise that polls are in many respect the lifeblood of this site but I really do wonder if we are wise to pay them as much attention as we do. The prime, maybe only, reason that so many people thought UKIP were in with a chance at the Oldham by-election was that the polling companies, against common sense, said so. They were wrong, hopelessly wrong. They were wrong over the GE and, worse, we know that they suppressed at least one poll that didn't fit in with their narrative.
In short the polling companies seem to have moved from reporting public opinion to shaping it and from any perspective, especially when it comes to betting, that is not healthy.
Mr Llama: One day I shall be near you in Hurstpierpoint and look forward to a civilised chat about this and that and our respective working cats! I know the area reasonably well. I have having done the London-Brighton bike ride a number of times and Ditchling Beacon is engraved on my heart......
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
Personally I think UKIP should stop promoting every election as a massive breakthrough moment. They don't have to break the mould, there is a referendum soon, their goal may well be achieved.
I reckon they will radically change after the referendum with a new leader or possibly merge into a new party featuring cons and labs
Success in politics tends to be incremental, rather than based on sudden breakthroughs.
You could say that at the 2001, 2005 & as a consequence of the 2010 election the LD's were achieving success in politics ......
O tempora O mores!
What's brutal about politics is that while success is incremental, failure is often sudden and dramatic.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
I'm not sure that comparing planning approaches in Dubai and the UK will take us anywhere other than to say that a feudalistic state will always find it easier to pour concrete.
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
Sure - as I said in my original post when Blackburn was nagging me to give my opinions::
"Look, I'm a socialist, so my views on UKIP are irrelevant: I'll be friendly to Kippers like anyone else, but hell will freeze over before I vote for them, just as Casino Royale is perfectly civil to us lefties but isn't going to vote Labour this side of forever."
We all know there are people here who we disagree with - there's no point in our ranting at each other and we temperamentally wouldn't want to, so we don't, except for comedy turns like the ones that MalcolmG and SeanT put on when they're in the mood. The forum is fun because it mostly engages our rational discursive sides, which we all like to think that we have as well.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Yes. He got it through parliament when the global tidal wave for it in Western countries was yet to come, and against a split and semi-hostile party. Perhaps he thinks he was now instrumental in leading that movement. However, I think his education, pensions and welfare reforms are far more significant and enduring.
FWIW, I think he's also always been a bit uncomfortable about being a self declared Conservative, socially that is, and this allows him - together with the international aid budget - to value signal his difference.
Personally, I think he believes what he does on gay marriage because his wife has told him so and is proud of him.
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
Me too. I think Corbyn is not barmy. His views and approach are malicious and dangerous. Far more dangerous than UKIP who have zero chance of forming the government whereas Labour could.
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
Dubai has dozens (at least) of sq. km of sand that no-one wants, even to graze camels on, a "voting" population of 100, all of whom benefit immensley from new developments, and can easily move elsewhere if they're affected and a labour force ...... up to and including planning lawyers and architects ..... which will have b*****d off long before the thing is causing problems. To them or anyone else. Apples & pears come to mind!
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
Sure - as I said in my original post when Blackburn was nagging me to give my opinions::
"Look, I'm a socialist, so my views on UKIP are irrelevant: I'll be friendly to Kippers like anyone else, but hell will freeze over before I vote for them, just as Casino Royale is perfectly civil to us lefties but isn't going to vote Labour this side of forever."
We all know there are people here who we disagree with - there's no point in our ranting at each other and we temperamentally wouldn't want to, so we don't, except for comedy turns like the ones that MalcolmG and SeanT put on when they're in the mood. The forum is fun because it mostly engages our rational discursive sides, which we all like to think that we have as well.
Actually, I am interested in why people reach the views they have. But it's your call how much you want to say, of course.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
Its worth remembering that UKIP voters do have quite, er, distinctive, views on a range of topics:
UKIP voters, unlike supporters of any other parties, tend to say they can imagine supporting the British Armed forces taking over the powers of government
Do you think there could be any situation, however unlikely, in which you could imagine the British Armed Forces taking over the powers of government?
The question does not support the conclusion. I can imagine a lot of things but that is not the same as being prepared to support them. To suggest otherwise, as the above post does, is very poor form.
The conclusion - lifted directly from YouGov - quotes the question.......
Yes, it may do but the question mentions nothing about supporting a military take over merely imagining one. The conclusion states that UKIP supporters would support one, that is pure propaganda unjustified by the question or the data. The fact that it comes from YouGov does not surprise me.
I realise that polls are in many respect the lifeblood of this site but I really do wonder if we are wise to pay them as much attention as we do. The prime, maybe only, reason that so many people thought UKIP were in with a chance at the Oldham by-election was that the polling companies, against common sense, said so. They were wrong, hopelessly wrong. They were wrong over the GE and, worse, we know that they suppressed at least one poll that didn't fit in with their narrative.
In short the polling companies seem to have moved from reporting public opinion to shaping it and from any perspective, especially when it comes to betting, that is not healthy.
Mr Llama: One day I shall be near you in Hurstpierpoint and look forward to a civilised chat about this and that and our respective working cats! I know the area reasonably well. I have having done the London-Brighton bike ride a number of times and Ditchling Beacon is engraved on my heart......
You have cycled up Ditchling Beacon? More than once? Wow! Full respect, Mrs Free. I look forward to buying you lunch at your convenience.
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
We all know there are people here who we disagree with - there's no point in our ranting at each other and we temperamentally wouldn't want to, so we don't, except for comedy turns like the ones that MalcolmG and SeanT put on when they're in the mood. The forum is fun because it mostly engages our rational discursive sides, which we all like to think that we have as well.
Amen. I think personal opinions about what should happen are far less interesting than people's thoughts on what is likely to happen. It's the betting perspective that makes this site so readable imo.
Of course it's irresistible to sound off a bit as well.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
''What's brutal about politics is that while success is incremental, failure is often sudden and dramatic. ''
Interesting stuff on conhome about the elections in France. The voters have seen the socialists and conservatives, who apparently hate each other, conspire.
In the short term it has worked. In the long term it only shows that politics in that country is utterly rotten.
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
Sure - as I said in my original post when Blackburn was nagging me to give my opinions::
"Look, I'm a socialist, so my views on UKIP are irrelevant: I'll be friendly to Kippers like anyone else, but hell will freeze over before I vote for them, just as Casino Royale is perfectly civil to us lefties but isn't going to vote Labour this side of forever."
We all know there are people here who we disagree with - there's no point in our ranting at each other and we temperamentally wouldn't want to, so we don't, except for comedy turns like the ones that MalcolmG and SeanT put on when they're in the mood. The forum is fun because it mostly engages our rational discursive sides, which we all like to think that we have as well.
Actually, I am interested in why people reach the views they have. But it's your call how much you want to say, of course.
Yes me too, I'm always surprised how ordinarily intelligent people are prepared to blindly follow a particular colour rosette.
I'm a kipper, I'm also openly critical of them at times.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
This however, is what the voters should *not* expect from the Tories. I think that Councillor Peter Cuthbertson has said all that needs to be said in response to the article.
The fact is, you have to try very hard to get sent to prison. Our prisons aren't full of people who get banged up for not paying their TV licences, or defaulting on fines. And, judges go to very great lengths already to find alternatives to custodial sentences.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
It's a peculiar thing - Kippers were anti EU for ages/socially conservative Bring Back 1950s, and then somehow they got the BNP For Pussies moniker. Now they seem to talk a great deal about immigration.
I don't really know how this all happened. I've some friends in their late 60s/70s who aren't socially conservative - but feel the country has changed too much culturally, and want it stopped. They vote UKIP or reluctantly Tory. Others are ex-Labour and detest multiculturalism/immigration affecting their childrens' chances/education and vote Kipper - these would rather die than vote Tory.
The only political Kipper activist I know is the stereotypical old grumpy man from the hang'em and flog'em school - who's pissed off about everything... Country Gone To The Dogs.
I must say I'm surprised how extreme ukip are still seen as by many. I know several people who are quite open at how horribly racist they are and how terrible it would be anywhere if they won. I'm not inclined to vote for them myself, but they've not struck me as that appreciably different from other parties, but some see them that way.
The vast majority of Ukip are socially conservative, its something that applies equally to plenty of labour voters. Seeing their cosy club threatened the established parties invented expressions like "BNP in blazers", although completely inaccurate to a great extent it worked.
That's what modern politics is all about, smearing opponents as opposed to good governance.
UKIP fills a void in the UK for a socially conservative party.
However, in doing so it repels Eurosceptic libertarians.
Yup, I have no party to vote for. I loathe the EU and I'm not massively bothered by the anti-immigration agenda, but I'm definitely very socially liberal. The Tories are the best fit, but the leadership is too pro-EU for my liking, once Dave is gone I will be voting for a proper sceptic.
Mr. 63, it's probably similar to the way some people get emotionally invested in their particular brand of console, or feel smug as a member of the PC Master Race. It's a minority, but they're nuts about it.
When you choose something as integral to your identity, it probably means you take attacks on it as personal attacks on yourself, and your esteem rises and falls with success and failure (as per football teams).
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
The problem I have with gay marriage as legislation is it is potentially discriminatory, I can't foresee a gay marriage in a mosque or a synagogue.
An interesting attempt at backtracking, perhaps you'll answer a direct question:
Are Ukip an extreme party?
In my opinion, yes. Completely barmy and would be very dangerous to our society if in power.
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
Interesting. I hold the same view of Corbyn's Labour Party.
Sure - as I said in my original post when Blackburn was nagging me to give my opinions::
"Look, I'm a socialist, so my views on UKIP are irrelevant: I'll be friendly to Kippers like anyone else, but hell will freeze over before I vote for them, just as Casino Royale is perfectly civil to us lefties but isn't going to vote Labour this side of forever."
We all know there are people here who we disagree with - there's no point in our ranting at each other and we temperamentally wouldn't want to, so we don't, except for comedy turns like the ones that MalcolmG and SeanT put on when they're in the mood. The forum is fun because it mostly engages our rational discursive sides, which we all like to think that we have as well.
Actually, I am interested in why people reach the views they have. But it's your call how much you want to say, of course.
Yes me too, I'm always surprised how ordinarily intelligent people are prepared to blindly follow a particular colour rosette.
I'm a kipper, I'm also openly critical of them at times.
Any thinking person should always be willing to criticise their preferred political party.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm sorry but I'm going to contest that.
Kippers are very enthusiastic and committed campaigners, what they don't have is voting history, therefore the canvassing is very hit and miss in terms of targeting. Postal votes are increasingly a factor, ukip simply have no record of this type of thing.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
At the start of the year we were instructed to get out in our target areas, the response:
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
Mr 63, make sure everyone in your local party reads this Labour account of the Oldham by-election. A fantastically detailed account of what went on there and how they played it out - starting with an activist poached from UKIP who knew their playbook. Massive emphasis on the right candidate, Labour managed to not mention Corbyn at all and only ever spoke about Jim, who was the model candidate.
UKIP need more model candidates, Carswell was a great example as a sitting MP with a strong local following. They will be found in Labour areas where Momentum have arrived and are threatening deselections. The defection of a couple of council leaders with local following and moderate politics is how UKIP will break through in the North.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
But we must avoid hyperbole.
Social attitudes change all the time, and those who are much older, and remember those of older generations, may find such transitions confusing and difficult. It doesn't make them unenlightened or bad people, neither does it make the advocates of change good. Such issues should be debated just as fervently and robustly as any other legislative change.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be commentary on our society in a hundred years time by future historians who turn their noses up at what we took to be 'normal' at the start of the 21stC.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
I know a lot of gay people. For them, and for their close friends and family, the acceptance of gay marriage meant acceptance of homosexuality.
I was once told - and I'm paraphrasing here - that if you say two people are equal but you have legislation in place that means that one cannot do things the other can do, then you are essentially saying one is better than the other.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
The problem I have with gay marriage as legislation is it is potentially discriminatory, I can't foresee a gay marriage in a mosque or a synagogue.
I dunno: I think forcing the Finsbury Park mosque to preside over a gay marriage might be quite amusing...
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
The problem I have with gay marriage as legislation is it is potentially discriminatory, I can't foresee a gay marriage in a mosque or a synagogue.
I dunno: I think forcing the Finsbury Park mosque to preside over a gay marriage might be quite amusing...
15 things I learnt about Islam and British values being a gay boy living opposite a mosque.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
I know a lot of gay people. For them, and for their close friends and family, the acceptance of gay marriage meant acceptance of homosexuality.
I was once told - and I'm paraphrasing here - that if you say two people are equal but you have legislation in place that means that one cannot do things the other can do, then you are essentially saying one is better than the other.
To a point, yes. I may be put down as a fuddy-duddy for saying this but I still think the best way and my preferred way (not the only way) is for a child to be a raised by its natural biological parents in wedlock. That would be my default starting position but it's not to say that other relationships cannot successfully and lovingly raise a child.
There are those who would consider such a view against equality, and might even consider it bigoted.
It seems to me that one problem UKIP has - whatever their strategy might be - is that they are not willing to put in the hard graft that is needed, day in, day out, to canvass voters, know what is going one etc etc. All the unglamorous stuff. They seem a touch too addicted to the publicity, to being seen as the naughty "epater la bourgeoisie" person saying the unsayable and that must be one of the reasons why, for all the general unhappiness voters may have with the established parties, UKIP fail to pull those voters in and so fail to deliver.
Generalised grumbling and well-targeted criticism are not - per se- enough.
I'm sorry but I'm going to contest that.
Kippers are very enthusiastic and committed campaigners, what they don't have is voting history, therefore the canvassing is very hit and miss in terms of targeting. Postal votes are increasingly a factor, ukip simply have no record of this type of thing.
Fair enough. But targeted canvassing is what is needed, no?
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
At the start of the year we were instructed to get out in our target areas, the response:
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
Mr 63, make sure everyone in your local party reads this Labour account of the Oldham by-election. A fantastically detailed account of what went on there and how they played it out - starting with an activist poached from UKIP who knew their playbook. Massive emphasis on the right candidate, Labour managed to not mention Corbyn at all and only ever spoke about Jim, who was the model candidate.
UKIP need more model candidates, Carswell was a great example as a sitting MP with a strong local following. They will be found in Labour areas where Momentum have arrived and are threatening deselections. The defection of a couple of council leaders with local following and moderate politics is how UKIP will break through in the North.
I agree entirely, I looked into McMahon and would have hated to stand against him, a very decent man by all accounts.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be commentary on our society in a hundred years time by future historians who turn their noses up at what we took to be 'normal' at the start of the 21stC.
Hopefully, our attitude to preserving the "life" of those in a vegetative state, our making it difficult for those who are incapacitated from ending their life, and (more controversially) for keeping alive those with 24-hour care dementia.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
The problem I have with gay marriage as legislation is it is potentially discriminatory, I can't foresee a gay marriage in a mosque or a synagogue.
I dunno: I think forcing the Finsbury Park mosque to preside over a gay marriage might be quite amusing...
Well quite, ask a liberal/Islington type labour voter about this issue and the hopscotch they play is fascinating.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
Should charitable status exist at all? Every charity works to achieve some end and that end will not be popular with some segment of society. Education, cats, dogs, maimed ex-service people, AIDS, religion, you name it some people, maybe even the majority, will be against it. So why have this thing called charitable status?
And on that happy note I am off to the !4th Century for the afternoon. Play nicely all.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be commentary on our society in a hundred years time by future historians who turn their noses up at what we took to be 'normal' at the start of the 21stC.
Hopefully, our attitude to preserving the "life" of those in a vegetative state, our making it difficult for those who are incapacitated from ending their life, and (more controversially) for keeping alive those with 24-hour care dementia.
Basically, quality of life at death.
Could be - Charles Moore thinks it might include our current preference for farming out our elderly and incapable parents into nursing homes for their final months of life.
There are others (radical view) who think we will cease to see paedophiles as criminals and deviants.
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
I'm not sure that comparing planning approaches in Dubai and the UK will take us anywhere other than to say that a feudalistic state will always find it easier to pour concrete. Agree completely that there's a very different concept of planning where 90% of residents are expats who can't vote and the elected members of the Federal National Council are at best only advisers to the hereditary rulers.
However.
There is undoubtedly a need in the UK (and other Western countries) to prioritise national infrastructure over the NIMBYism that is killing progress. If that means paying 50% over value to buy up property in the way then do it, it's cheaper than years and years of enquiries. Also limiting objections to those actually affected (rather than allowing eg. a campaign group from Brighton to object LHR expansion) would make a massive difference. Our competition for airline routes is not just AMS and FRA but DXB and DOH.
We see the same with HS2, just get on with doing it rather than the endless talking about it. The rest of the world is laughing at the inability of the UK to Get Stuff Done.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There are many charitable organisations whose views I strongly disagree with, but would still allow them to retain charitable status. I would no more make gay marriage a litmus test for charitable status than I would any other political or religious viewpoint.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
Should charitable status exist at all? Every charity works to achieve some end and that end will not be popular with some segment of society. Education, cats, dogs, maimed ex-service people, AIDS, religion, you name it some people, maybe even the majority, will be against it. So why have this thing called charitable status?
And on that happy note I am off to the !4th Century for the afternoon. Play nicely all.
Yes, the charitable status helped me get a fabulous education.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
The problem I have with gay marriage as legislation is it is potentially discriminatory, I can't foresee a gay marriage in a mosque or a synagogue.
I dunno: I think forcing the Finsbury Park mosque to preside over a gay marriage might be quite amusing...
15 things I learnt about Islam and British values being a gay boy living opposite a mosque.
What reasons has Ian Warren given for saying this walkover was a lot closer than 1/8?
It blatantly wasn't, and that comment certainly set the agenda on here, and is continuing on this thread even though it was not accurate
I don't think that he has. He's also deleted his sweary but very amusing post from last week.
The agenda wasn't set just by Ian Warren. There were a lot of nervous Labour canvassers and a lot of journalists who found a lot of disaffected Labour supporters (cf John Harris's vlog for the Guardian).
While I agree with you that UKIP should never have been expected to win, I did expect UKIP to make progress in this seat. If UKIP are going to break the mould, they should have been adding more than a percent or two onto their general election vote here. A swing against them is not progress.
As I said below, the fact that this result was so poor is in an odd way helpful for UKIP. It removes excuses and forces them to reconsider their strategy.
Personally I think UKIP should stop promoting every election as a massive breakthrough moment. They don't have to break the mould, there is a referendum soon, their goal may well be achieved.
I reckon they will radically change after the referendum with a new leader or possibly merge into a new party featuring cons and labs
Success in politics tends to be incremental, rather than based on sudden breakthroughs.
You could say that at the 2001, 2005 & as a consequence of the 2010 election the LD's were achieving success in politics ......
O tempora O mores!
What's brutal about politics is that while success is incremental, failure is often sudden and dramatic.
I've been finding out a bit more about Oldham, and from the information I've gleaned, I don't think Mike's take is quite right. The Andrew Gwynne piece on LabourList is very good on what happened.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true, and that is what spooked the Labour campaign. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed, with targetted message for different categories of voters.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
I've been finding out a bit more about Oldham, and from the information I've gleaned, I don't think Mike's take is quite right. The Andrew Gwynne piece on LabourList is very good on what happened.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
I guess that it has meant a great deal to gay people who have got married. More than anything any government has ever done, perhaps.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be commentary on our society in a hundred years time by future historians who turn their noses up at what we took to be 'normal' at the start of the 21stC.
Hopefully, our attitude to preserving the "life" of those in a vegetative state, our making it difficult for those who are incapacitated from ending their life, and (more controversially) for keeping alive those with 24-hour care dementia.
Basically, quality of life at death.
Could be - Charles Moore thinks it might include our current preference for farming out our elderly and incapable parents into nursing homes for their final months of life.
There are others (radical view) who think we will cease to see paedophiles as criminals and deviants.
We don't know where society will be in 100 years' time. But, we can be pretty certain that there things we take for granted that will be viewed with abhorrence by our descendants.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There are many charitable organisations whose views I strongly disagree with, but would still allow them to retain charitable status. I would no more make gay marriage a litmus test for charitable status than I would any other political or religious viewpoint.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
Norman Tebbit wades into the Heathrow debate: he is spot on with this observation.
But oh, Lord, are our democratic Parliamentary politics and the rational development of infrastructure mutually exclusive, or is it that we live in a era of politicians to whom "long term" means the time to the next election and "purpose" means getting re-elected?
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5. This for the same basic project of a large new building on an existing site, with nothing external bar the access roads.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
Dubai has dozens (at least) of sq. km of sand that no-one wants, even to graze camels on, a "voting" population of 100, all of whom benefit immensley from new developments, and can easily move elsewhere if they're affected and a labour force ...... up to and including planning lawyers and architects ..... which will have b*****d off long before the thing is causing problems. To them or anyone else. Apples & pears come to mind! Oh yes, they are already building a six runway airport in the sand for when the existing one becomes overwhelmed. The first of which is open and used for cargo and lo-co airlines now, as well as a diversion field for when there's problems at DXB and a few dozen planes need to go somewhere before their fuel runs out! It's also next door to the site for World Expo 2020
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There are many charitable organisations whose views I strongly disagree with, but would still allow them to retain charitable status. I would no more make gay marriage a litmus test for charitable status than I would any other political or religious viewpoint.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
That's an interesting issue. I've worked in this field (as legacy officer for an animal charity). Representatives of medical charities absolutely *loathe" the fact that animal charities have charitable status, in my experience. One told me that he thought the donkeys should be made into salami.
Nevertheless, I'd say that at a time when the State is retreating from directly providing all sorts of services, due to reasons of cost, that the tax breaks for charities are probably money well spent.
''In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not. ''
At Waterloo Station today there were a bunch of 8-year olds carol singing for their local food bank.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
I strongly disagree. The whole point of charities is that they do things the state can't or won't do. They are a safety valve which protects us from political priorities.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
There are many charitable organisations whose views I strongly disagree with, but would still allow them to retain charitable status. I would no more make gay marriage a litmus test for charitable status than I would any other political or religious viewpoint.
I would take a much tighter grip on what qualifies for charitable status on other fronts also. Charities benefit from enormous tax breaks. In a time where public finances are fragile, we need a much more rigorous discussion about we should be subsidising at public expense donkey sanctuaries or what not.
That's an interesting issue. I've worked in this field (as legacy officer for an animal charity). Representatives of medical charities absolutely *loathe" the fact that animal charities have charitable status, in my experience. One told me that he thought the donkeys should be made into salami.
Nevertheless, I'd say that at a time when the State is retreating from directly providing all sorts of services, due to reasons of cost, that the tax breaks for charities are probably money well spent.
Where do you stop?
Is gender discrimination by charities allowed?
If not, then bye-bye most of the women-only men-banned support services.
Never mind that your logic will wrap through onto race-based housing associations, Ghurka veteran support organisations and all the rest,
It will take some argument to limit that proposed discrimination you wiosh to impose to religious charities.
An important question here is whether you believe you have a personal right to censor other people's freedom of conscience by preventing it being reflected in the legal system.
We should remove charitable status from any religious organisation that refuses to perform gay marriages. They're entitled to freedom of religion. They're not entitled to be funded by us to put forward views that are inconsistent with our secular society.
Hmm - not sure about this. They're not funded for their views but for their charitable activities e.g. helping the poor etc.
I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.
50 years ago views about homosexuality were very different. I think the changes since then are a huge improvement and something that has made the world - not just for gays - but for all of us a much better place. The removal of discriminatory laws against minorities is not just about them but about us, about the sorts of people we are and about how we treat people around us.
But we should be careful about imposing a sort of liberal intolerance on others, especially if mandated by the state. The secular view is this; the religious one is different, starting from a different point. Provided the latter does not teach people to undermine the law or not comply with it I see no reason why we cannot know about and think about and learn from the different philosophical approaches to the great and small questions of life. There are spaces for all sorts of voices in our society. Diversity cannot just be for those of whom we approve.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
Especially when gay marriage was there in all but name already.
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
I was a big supporter of civil partnerships but agnostic about gay marriage. I was very comfortable with the traditional definition of marriage but also recognised that many gay people wished to give the same commitment and label to their relationships and were frustrated that the law prevented them from doing so.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
The problem I have with gay marriage as legislation is it is potentially discriminatory, I can't foresee a gay marriage in a mosque or a synagogue.
I dunno: I think forcing the Finsbury Park mosque to preside over a gay marriage might be quite amusing...
15 things I learnt about Islam and British values being a gay boy living opposite a mosque.
Brilliant and true - Your average follower of any religion isn't generally as conformist as the religion preaches - I wonder what proportion of Catholic couples in their 30s and 40s use contraception?
Comments
But I try not to waste everyone's time with writing my personal opinions here. It's more interesting to discuss what most people seem to think.
A very telling turn of phrase. Jeremy Corbyn will take a job as Prince Charles's butler before Cameron plumps for Leave.
He also said his proudest achievement was gay marriage, and modernising the Conservative Party by pulling it to the centre ground.
At least he's honest but I'll be looking for a candidate who has some fresh thinking and can articulate how we deal with the challenges of the 2020s and 2030s.
The government he was in didn't do it either...!
On topic, this is a very interesting article from Walesonline. UKIP clearly still has some leverage
However, there is a consistent pattern - from cyclists going through red lights to Military coup d'etat - where UKIP voters are outliers to the rest of the population.
We will never know but it'd have been interesting to see what would have happened in 2015 to such a government assuming a similar rise for UKIP and the SNP (which I think would have happened anyway) and a more or less intact Lib Dems.
More and more, people judge everything as death or glory. I try to imagine myself looking at the Wikipedia page in 30 years time and seeing how things developed to avoid this short termism
The fact is each party appeals to discrete groups of electorate.
Anyway, thanks to you and Nick Palmer for your comments on this.
As a libertarian gay marriage isn't an issue for me, it's about consenting adults, I seldom speak to anybody who gives a toss about it. If Cameron makes that his proudest achievement it says a great deal about what else he's achieved.
If they can find a few more like Jim, there may be a good chance Corbyn can hang around to the GE - when people will look at the LotO as a potential PM and deliver a very clear verdict indeed.
Could Holland be the place where the Right finally breaks through?
I realise that polls are in many respect the lifeblood of this site but I really do wonder if we are wise to pay them as much attention as we do. The prime, maybe only, reason that so many people thought UKIP were in with a chance at the Oldham by-election was that the polling companies, against common sense, said so. They were wrong, hopelessly wrong. They were wrong over the GE and, worse, we know that they suppressed at least one poll that didn't fit in with their narrative.
In short the polling companies seem to have moved from reporting public opinion to shaping it and from any perspective, especially when it comes to betting, that is not healthy.
O tempora O mores!
Yep! Planning for major infrastructure has been holding the country back for decades.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum
What are our target areas?
We have no back data, no idea who previously voted for us, and were stabbing in the dark. Thanks to an awful lot of legwork next time we're better equipped, but things can change an awful lot in 5 years.
I've lived in a military dictatorship (sheltered, as an expat). For all their faults, democracies win hands down....things like 'rule of law' do better and 'corruption' does worse.
We are beset by maniacs sir!
Mr Morris no later than March 2017, according to Wiki....
To me his greatest achievement has been the Gove education reforms, alongside the rebalancing of the state towards consumers rather than producers, and sorting out the finances. The latter can't be said enough given the alternatives.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
I'm not sure that comparing planning approaches in Dubai and the UK will take us anywhere other than to say that a feudalistic state will always find it easier to pour concrete.
"Look, I'm a socialist, so my views on UKIP are irrelevant: I'll be friendly to Kippers like anyone else, but hell will freeze over before I vote for them, just as Casino Royale is perfectly civil to us lefties but isn't going to vote Labour this side of forever."
We all know there are people here who we disagree with - there's no point in our ranting at each other and we temperamentally wouldn't want to, so we don't, except for comedy turns like the ones that MalcolmG and SeanT put on when they're in the mood. The forum is fun because it mostly engages our rational discursive sides, which we all like to think that we have as well.
Scotland's only Tory MP claims the Conservatives are about to have a 'resurgence' north of the border
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotlands-only-tory-mp-claims-the-conservatives-are-about-to-have-a-resurgence-north-of-the-border-a6772391.html
Mr. Taffys, cheers. Just ahead of our referendum, probably.
FWIW, I think he's also always been a bit uncomfortable about being a self declared Conservative, socially that is, and this allows him - together with the international aid budget - to value signal his difference.
Personally, I think he believes what he does on gay marriage because his wife has told him so and is proud of him.
A favourite statistic trotted out where I am now is that Dubai's terminal 3 was designed, built and opened in the same timescale as the planning enquiry for LHR T5.
We have not even started the process of planning enquiry, various judicial reviews, purchase orders etc of the new LHR runway - it will easily be 10 or 15 years before there's spades in the ground, even though the majority of the required land has already been purchased by the airport.
Dubai has dozens (at least) of sq. km of sand that no-one wants, even to graze camels on, a "voting" population of 100, all of whom benefit immensley from new developments, and can easily move elsewhere if they're affected and a labour force ...... up to and including planning lawyers and architects ..... which will have b*****d off long before the thing is causing problems. To them or anyone else.
Apples & pears come to mind!
TSE called Scottish Tory Surge already
The Gove reforms are classic Tory stuff. Voters expect that sort of thing, not gay marriage.
But more importantly: what's Sunday's Spanish election result going to look like?
Podemos has been on a tear- although they seem to be stuck sub 20%.
I'd go for:
PP - 30%
PSOE - 22%
Cs - 20%
P - 19%
Result PP/C coalition.
Of course it's irresistible to sound off a bit as well.
Except to the passionate it wasn't exactly the issue of the century. It was, however, very symbolic of a broader cultural and social divide, which is why it became so heated I suppose.
@JMahony_IG: Brent crude breaking through $37.68 support to create yet another 10 year low #Oil https://t.co/hVd3hoWeil
Interesting stuff on conhome about the elections in France. The voters have seen the socialists and conservatives, who apparently hate each other, conspire.
In the short term it has worked. In the long term it only shows that politics in that country is utterly rotten.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Taffys, did they conspire? I thought it was only the socialists who had withdrawn candidates to try and frustrate FN.
I'm a kipper, I'm also openly critical of them at times.
The fact is, you have to try very hard to get sent to prison. Our prisons aren't full of people who get banged up for not paying their TV licences, or defaulting on fines. And, judges go to very great lengths already to find alternatives to custodial sentences.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nadhim-zahawi-mp-we-send-people-to-prison-as-punishment-we-shouldnt-send-them-there-to-be-punished.html
When you choose something as integral to your identity, it probably means you take attacks on it as personal attacks on yourself, and your esteem rises and falls with success and failure (as per football teams).
There's a shade of tribal religiosity about it.
One of the unintended consequences of the Corbyn interregnum is the detoxing by the lunatic left of the word Tory
It is most entertaining to watch
I would point out that opinion polling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence#Public_opinion) continues to point to the people of Catalonia being generally against independecne. Support is now at a five year low.
Mr. P, it's almost Pavlovian.
UKIP need more model candidates, Carswell was a great example as a sitting MP with a strong local following. They will be found in Labour areas where Momentum have arrived and are threatening deselections. The defection of a couple of council leaders with local following and moderate politics is how UKIP will break through in the North.
http://labourlist.org/2015/12/how-the-oldham-west-was-won/
The article cites 'unprecedented cooperation' between the left and Sarko. Not sure if that's conspiring or not.
Truth is, you can vote for whatever you want in Western Europe.
What you get, in every case, is social democracy.
Social attitudes change all the time, and those who are much older, and remember those of older generations, may find such transitions confusing and difficult. It doesn't make them unenlightened or bad people, neither does it make the advocates of change good. Such issues should be debated just as fervently and robustly as any other legislative change.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be commentary on our society in a hundred years time by future historians who turn their noses up at what we took to be 'normal' at the start of the 21stC.
I was once told - and I'm paraphrasing here - that if you say two people are equal but you have legislation in place that means that one cannot do things the other can do, then you are essentially saying one is better than the other.
Personally, I think we should target government spending of 6% of GDP. But I realise I'm in a minority :-)
http://bit.ly/1Uo4pHR
There are those who would consider such a view against equality, and might even consider it bigoted.
Incumbency plays a massive part, the opportunity to cement relationships and build a local profile, in reality Ukip are a million miles away which is a shame. For all the opprobrium chucked at us 99% of the party are thoroughly decent people.
@politicshome: Chuka Umunna: Time to scrap First Past the Post https://t.co/0dZRq2ArNl https://t.co/OWDSCPRFIT
Basically, quality of life at death.
And on that happy note I am off to the !4th Century for the afternoon. Play nicely all.
There are others (radical view) who think we will cease to see paedophiles as criminals and deviants.
Agree completely that there's a very different concept of planning where 90% of residents are expats who can't vote and the elected members of the Federal National Council are at best only advisers to the hereditary rulers.
However.
There is undoubtedly a need in the UK (and other Western countries) to prioritise national infrastructure over the NIMBYism that is killing progress. If that means paying 50% over value to buy up property in the way then do it, it's cheaper than years and years of enquiries. Also limiting objections to those actually affected (rather than allowing eg. a campaign group from Brighton to object LHR expansion) would make a massive difference. Our competition for airline routes is not just AMS and FRA but DXB and DOH.
We see the same with HS2, just get on with doing it rather than the endless talking about it. The rest of the world is laughing at the inability of the UK to Get Stuff Done.
It's true that UKIP got their strategy wrong, but I think the principal reason why Labour got such a good result compared with expectations is simply that they ran an extremely good, well-resourced, and well-focused campaign, with an excellent local candidate. As Nick P mentioned upthread, Labour started from a sound position in that they already had good canvassing data despite this being a safe seat - a useful reminder to all parties not to take safe seats for granted.
What seems to have happened is that the accounts of people on the doorstep being extremely negative about Corbyn were true, and that is what spooked the Labour campaign. The danger to Labour seems to have been not so much that their voters would switch to UKIP in large numbers, although some did, but that they simply wouldn't turn out to support Corbyn. The Labour campaign team picked this up early, and responded by going all out on making it a referendum not on Corbyn, but on Jim McMahon and on who was best for Oldham. They also put in a massive amount of work, which was also very well focussed, with targetted message for different categories of voters.
As regards expectations, it does seem to be true that Labour genuinely thought this would be quite close, which is why they put so much effort in. It paid off much better than they had hoped.
Maybe Mr RCS, but 15 years ago it was probably 80%.
Apples & pears come to mind!
Oh yes, they are already building a six runway airport in the sand for when the existing one becomes overwhelmed. The first of which is open and used for cargo and lo-co airlines now, as well as a diversion field for when there's problems at DXB and a few dozen planes need to go somewhere before their fuel runs out! It's also next door to the site for World Expo 2020
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Maktoum_International_Airport
Nevertheless, I'd say that at a time when the State is retreating from directly providing all sorts of services, due to reasons of cost, that the tax breaks for charities are probably money well spent.
At Waterloo Station today there were a bunch of 8-year olds carol singing for their local food bank.
Corbynites get them young.
Is gender discrimination by charities allowed?
If not, then bye-bye most of the women-only men-banned support services.
Never mind that your logic will wrap through onto race-based housing associations, Ghurka veteran support organisations and all the rest,
It will take some argument to limit that proposed discrimination you wiosh to impose to religious charities.
An important question here is whether you believe you have a personal right to censor other people's freedom of conscience by preventing it being reflected in the legal system.
I don't believe you do.
I think we have to be careful about imposing received opinions on people or assuming that there is only one legitimate view to be taken about any issue.
50 years ago views about homosexuality were very different. I think the changes since then are a huge improvement and something that has made the world - not just for gays - but for all of us a much better place. The removal of discriminatory laws against minorities is not just about them but about us, about the sorts of people we are and about how we treat people around us.
But we should be careful about imposing a sort of liberal intolerance on others, especially if mandated by the state. The secular view is this; the religious one is different, starting from a different point. Provided the latter does not teach people to undermine the law or not comply with it I see no reason why we cannot know about and think about and learn from the different philosophical approaches to the great and small questions of life. There are spaces for all sorts of voices in our society. Diversity cannot just be for those of whom we approve.