politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ukip could be contesting 70 percent of the council seats up for election on May 2
Over the next couple of days we should see the full nomination list for the council seats that are due to be contested on May 2nd and the big focus is on how many candidates Ukip will manage to field.
Will high street campaign office's escape rEds crackdown on successful businesses ?
I'm trying to apply EdM's Predator vs Producer speech to his crackdown on takeaways, Frosties, bookies and paydayloan shops [I've never seen one].
What is going on with his incessant nannying? We can't choose to spend our own money on what we want to unless his middle-class Marxist will-changing Primrose Hill intellectual approval is stamped on it?
Will high street campaign office's escape rEds crackdown on successful businesses ?
I'm trying to apply EdM's Predator vs Producer speech to his crackdown on takeaways, Frosties, bookies and paydayloan shops [I've never seen one].
What is going on with his incessant nannying? We can't choose to spend our own money on what we want to unless his middle-class Marxist will-changing Primrose Hill intellectual approval is stamped on it?
I'd slap him with a glove if I met him.
Violence is the response of those who have lost the argument; as is telling porkies about what political opponents have said.
Warwickshire: 22 UKIP (Lab-Con-Green 62 LD 36 TUSC 22 BNP 8) Nottinghamshire: 61 UKIP (Lab 67 Con 62 LD 51 Greens 19) Lancashire, full slate in Chorley, Rossendale, Fylde, South Ribble, missing 1 in Wyre and Preston, 3 out of 6 in Burnley. 3 authorities missing. Leicestershire: 42 out of 55 Norfolk: 69 out of 97 Gloucestershire: 39 out of 53 Somerset: 47 out of 55 Oxfordshire: just 5 out of 14 in Oxford, missing one in South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, full slate in West Oxfordshire and Cherwell Northamptonshire: 44 out of 57 Wiltshire: 54 out of 98 (but Lab and LD are also at 61 and 60. 6 Tories are elected unopposed) Northumberland: around 22 out of 67
Labour and the Liberal Democrats today launch their campaigns for the local elections on 2 May, which will be significant as one of the last major tests of the political weather ahead of the general election. In 2009, the Tories swept the board in these seats – mainly naturally right-of-centre, shire areas – so the only question a few months ago was how many seats they would lose, and whether it would be Labour or the Liberal Democrats that took the most off them. What has since complicated those calculations has been Ukip’s dramatic emergence, which is why the leaders of all three parties will be watching to see whether Nigel Farage can sustain the momentum he generated in the Eastleigh by-election in February. The wild card of British politics is still coasting along on 17 per cent in the polls, well below the 28 per cent it won in Eastleigh but enough to inflict massive damage on the Tories unless its bubble deflates before May.
It will be very interesting to see whether, as in Eastleigh, UKIP take as many votes off the LibDems as they do off the Tories, in areas where Labour are weak. Given that the primary motivation for voting UKIP seems to be as a nihilistic anti-politics protest, and that the LibDems are in government so are not suited to the role of harvesting this mood, I suspect we may well see such an effect. In this sense (as antifrank astutely pointed out very early), UKIP are more like Beppo Grillo's movement than the BNP.
EdM finally wakes up. For far too long any old bunch of jokers could come and set up on the high street like some ridiculous free for all. This is a much better idea.
I would like an artisan cheese shop, an independent wine merchant, a shop selling those t-shirts with the funny comments on them designed by some bloke from St. Martins’, and a Nespresso machine repair shop.
"Violence is the response of those who have lost the argument; as is telling porkies about what political opponents have said."
When you feel the need to post a response to a foppish joke about being slapped with a glove - I suspect you're being a tad over-sensitive! What are you worried about SO?
Buy online ladies wedge sandals from our new and latest collection of Evening wedge shoes. Unze UK has a variety of wedges which you can buy at special discounts with Free UK Delivery and Returns .
'How long before Ed's latest 'contributory benefits' wheeze is ruled illegal under EU law?'
At least Ed's confirmed that he will be increasing the welfare budget,since his party has been telling us for weeks that you can't live on £53 per week.
Another expensive program to be paid by taxing bankers bonus's, NI & income tax increases.
The two Ed's & their taxes will make Denis Healey look like a wimp.
I don't really think any of the PB Tories have read what's being said have they?
Or do they want local councils decision making over licensed premises removed?
It's more a case of some people wanting to believe certain things so choosing to do so whatever the reality. It's like bemoaning being stopped from debating things when the debate you have in mind is just about saying how dreadful/appalling/hateful etc certain groups, types, individuals and so on that you don't like are.
It will be very interesting to see whether, as in Eastleigh, UKIP take as many votes off the LibDems as they do off the Tories, in areas where Labour are weak. Given that the primary motivation for voting UKIP seems to be as a nihilistic anti-politics protest, and that the LibDems are in government so are not suited to the role of harvesting this mood, I suspect we may well see such an effect. In this sense (as antifrank astutely pointed out very early), UKIP are more like Beppo Grillo's movement than the BNP.
Why is voting UKIP nihilistic ? I'm not a kipper and won't vote for them, but it seems to me Richard your still stuck in that mindset which refuses to accept failings in our current political parties. Until they start reflecting the shades of the nation and not just their heatlands they will continue to lose support and deservedly so.
As I said you convinced me to not vote blue next time with one of your throw away statements that disaffected blues have no alternative but to come back. Instead of Sir Samuel Pepys I saw your hero Louis XIV and staring from your avatar Sir Richard Nabob . ;-)
EdM finally wakes up. For far too long any old bunch of jokers could come and set up on the high street like some ridiculous free for all. This is a much better idea.
I would like an artisan cheese shop, an independent wine merchant, a shop selling those t-shirts with the funny comments on them designed by some bloke from St. Martins’, and a Nespresso machine repair shop.
Who do I send my list to?
LOL - can I sign a petition for one selling vintage shoes, a vinyl record emporium full of Billy Bragg imports and another purveyor of organic free trade sustainable scented candles?
The lack of these on my High St was the reason Woolies shut down - and was replaced by ICELAND...
"Violence is the response of those who have lost the argument; as is telling porkies about what political opponents have said."
When you feel the need to post a response to a foppish joke about being slapped with a glove - I suspect you're being a tad over-sensitive! What are you worried about SO?
I am worried about Spurs having to sell Gareth Bale because we are going to blow getting a CL place again.
I am not worried that you did not understand I realised you were not seriously suggesting a physical attack on Ed Miliband. I expected that!
"Violence is the response of those who have lost the argument; as is telling porkies about what political opponents have said."
When you feel the need to post a response to a foppish joke about being slapped with a glove - I suspect you're being a tad over-sensitive! What are you worried about SO?
We are very aggressive today , last thread you were insulting Scottish culture and Scotland in general and now you are abusing SO for having an opinion other than your Tory viewpoint. Tut Tut.
As I said you convinced me to not vote blue next time with one of your throw away statements that disaffected blues have no alternative but to come back.
I've never said that. They have plenty of alternatives, all of which make a Labour government more likely and therefore progress on the EU less likely.
Of course, I hope that disaffected blues will come back when faced with the actual choice of Miliband vs Cameron, but it's entirely up to them. I can't force people to be rational; all I can do is try to assess, for betting purposes, the extent to which they'll be irrational. Clearly at the moment a vote for UKIP (in a by-election or a local election) is a cost-free protest, but the nihilistic mood of cutting off your nose to spite your face does seem quite strong, and may well continue in 2015. That's why I'm rebalancing my investments away from the UK.
In wards where both UKIP and the Lib Dems are merely putting up paper candidates - i.e. candidates whose names appear on the ballot paper but for whom no actual campaign is waged - I can readily see that in the circumstances of April - May 2013 UKIP may outpoll the Lib Dems. But in Tory-held wards where the Lib Dems have a visible presence on the ground (and these are the wards that matter to the Lib Dems in this round of elections), it still seems likely that any rise in the UKIP vote is likely to take more votes away from the Tories than from the Lib Dems.
Aww - if objecting to being force fed Andy Stewart on New Year or suggesting someone is slapped with a glove is *aggressive* in your book... step outside laddie - and I'll show you a thing or two ;^ )
'EdM finally wakes up. For far too long any old bunch of jokers could come and set up on the high street like some ridiculous free for all. This is a much better idea.'
'EdM finally wakes up. For far too long any old bunch of jokers could come and set up on the high street like some ridiculous free for all. This is a much better idea.'
As I said you convinced me to not vote blue next time with one of your throw away statements that disaffected blues have no alternative but to come back.
I've never said that. They have plenty of alternatives, all of which make a Labour government more likely and therefore progress on the EU less likely.
Of course, I hope that disaffected blues will come back when faced with the actual choice of Miliband vs Cameron, but it's entirely up to them. I can't force people to be rational; all I can do is try to assess, for betting purposes, the extent to which they'll be irrational. Clearly at the moment a vote for UKIP (in a by-election or a local election) is a cost-free protest, but the nihilistic mood of cutting off your nose to spite your face does seem quite strong. That's why I'm rebalancing my investments away from the UK.
And there you go Richard. Maybe what's rational for you isn't what's rational for me. Maybe my circumstances dictate a different path. Since like many people I see little real differences between the major parties and the financial straightjacket means they all have little room for manouevre it seems rational to me that people consider alternatives which will break the current political logjam. Assuming blue voters are as sheeplike as Rotherham Labourites is dangerous for the Cons. and simply shows the Southern mindset. If the blues want the disaffected to come back they will have to earn it and they'll have to earn it in places outside their comfort zone, like Scotland. Threats of Labour bogeymen won't win an election when there's little difference between Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.
Many of us who don't intend to vote Labour in GE2015 have been saying for several years that bandwaggoning a la Hague is a bad idea.
And lo, it came to pass. Labour are only an average of 10pts ahead in mid-term and in a dreadful economic state - and with votes supposedly from the Tories leaking in droves to the Kippers.
WTF does EdM need to do before he can break away - clearly not what he's been doing vs a neutered Tory HMG and LDs playing Schroedinger's Gov.
It will be very interesting to see whether, as in Eastleigh, UKIP take as many votes off the LibDems as they do off the Tories, in areas where Labour are weak. Given that the primary motivation for voting UKIP seems to be as a nihilistic anti-politics protest, and that the LibDems are in government so are not suited to the role of harvesting this mood, I suspect we may well see such an effect. In this sense (as antifrank astutely pointed out very early), UKIP are more like Beppo Grillo's movement than the BNP.
My word, Richard! Ukips rise is really making you sweat. To compare Ukip with Beppo Grillo's movement is wishful thinking of the most extreme kind.
Threats of Labour bogeymen won't win an election when there's little difference between Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.
Fine, but don't blame me when you discover (or, rather, rediscover) that there is a lot a difference. How anyone could have already forgotten 1997-2010, or fail to see the changes this government is making to welfare, education and the public finances, or not want an EU referendum if they are Eurosceptic, is beyond my comprehension. The attitude of disaffected blues seems to be inchoate anger that they can't have everything they want, so they'd rather have nothing they want. That's pretty much a definition of irrationality, especially when the fact that we are in a coalition is taken into account.
And lo, it came to pass. Labour are only an average of 10pts ahead in mid-term
If you don't understand the polling just say and it may save you further embarrassment. It didn't just "come to pass" nor was it the result of being mid term. It was a direct result of the toxic Osbrowne's omnishambles budget as we can all clearly see here.
I've been amused at the BBC attacks on the girl appointed as a Youth Crime Person in Kent because of some offensive tweets she made 2 years ago when she was 15. If they or Sky sacked all the journos they employ on similar grounds they'd have no-one reading the news except the odd cleaner.
" The attitude of disaffected blues seems to be inchoate anger that they can't have everything they want, so they'd rather have nothing they want"
I'm torn.
I like what Gove is doing, and IDS and May on the whole - but despite my natural tendency to stick with a choice I've made [in for a penny/pound sort] - I'm getting really disappointed with Mr Cameron despite thinking he's a fairly straight and decent sort. I suspect his wife is more on my wavelength when she told him that 'society isn't the same as the State". Sage words.
Too much nannying and backsliding. If he wants to be Ken Clark then fine - but that's not what I put my X in the box for at GE2010.
I think Richard Nabavi is right -some Conservative voters expect way too much from a coalition govt. Cameron is a decent politician trying to keep the party in the centre. If he fails they will lose. End of.
Threats of Labour bogeymen won't win an election when there's little difference between Cameron, Clegg and Miliband.
Fine, but don't blame me when you discover (or, rather, rediscover) that there is a lot a difference. How anyone could have already forgotten 1997-2010, or fail to see the changes this government is making to welfare, education and the public finances, or not want an EU referendum if they are Eurosceptic, is beyond my comprehension. The attitude of disaffected blues seems to be inchoate anger that they can't have everything they want, so they'd rather have nothing they want. That's pretty much a definition of irrationality, especially when the fact that we are in a coalition is taken into account.
Of course it's beyond your comprehension, which is the point. You can't conceive of the electoral agenda outside the City dominated south east and haven't worked out that's where 60% of the nation's votes are.
I don't expect everything, quite frankly nor would I want it. What I do expect is a government which puts the economy first, which unpicks the Labour big government legacy instead of reinforcing it and which has policies for the bits of the country outside the City. How is it irrational not to vote Blue when you don't have policies for people in the rest of the state, if anything it's irrational to vote blue when you offer me nothing. As for Ed Milibogeyman he's inept not scary.
I think Richard Nabavi is right -some Conservative voters expect way too much from a coalition govt. Cameron is a decent politician trying to keep the party in the centre. If he fails they will lose. End of.
he's a failing politician. he can't win an election from the centre ground either. Like all PMs he has to win on a wide spectrum from Centre through to Right and he has to have policies which give everyone a bit of something to make them all accept the inevitable compromises involved.
@Plato; "Too much nannying and backsliding. If he wants to be Ken Clark then fine - but that's not what I put my X in the box for at GE2010."
My dear Plato, I'm surprised that it has taken this long to realise that Cammo is 'all fur coat and no knickers'. He is an empty suit, without a single worthwhile idea, ever since he was voted leader. Those same voters are now deserting the conservative party en mass.
Can it be that the Plato iceberg is now beginning to melt?
Why do these people not realise how quickly they'll be undone by their own actions?
RT @ChrisRogers92: 1 of LSE's 'revolutionary socialist' delegates is staying in the 4 star Copthorne for NUS - nice if you can get it < oops
When I was at university in Brum the woman who headed the SWP had a house in Selly Oak bought for her by her Dad, who also send a driver to pick her up at the end of each term.
Richard N is right, the rise of UKIP is of course an absolute gift to Labour. But I expect many will drift back to the Tories come the business end of the Parliament.
The Tory problem is the more momentum UKIP have, the more they feel like a serious party worthy of real allegiance rather than a hissy protest receptacle.
Assuming the next election is already lost for the Tories, they probably need to squeeze UKIP down to single figures at least to avoid a total humiliation. Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
're Cameron he is the one leader more popular than his party and the preferred voter PM I believe. I don't know who you see as the better alternative centre right option.
Indeed, much like François Hollande. I'm not sure you should take that as much consolation, though; the damage is the same whether caused by well-meaning naivety or something else.
As for unpicking the damaging bits of Labour's legacy, huge progress has been made. I won't bother listing it all again.
Why do these people not realise how quickly they'll be undone by their own actions?
RT @ChrisRogers92: 1 of LSE's 'revolutionary socialist' delegates is staying in the 4 star Copthorne for NUS - nice if you can get it < oops
When I was at university in Brum the woman who headed the SWP had a house in Selly Oak bought for her by her Dad, who also send a driver to pick her up at the end of each term.
Whenever I come across this sort of stuff - it reminds me of the infamous Citizen Smith sketch. Mr Sullivan was a strong lefty as was Mr Lindsay - yet they debunked it perfectly.
Wolfie: Well they’re going to get it whether they want it or not … They’re confused Shirl, they’re bewildered by the shifting sands of class. … The working class, yer actual working class, it’s suddenly become trendy so now you’ve got different standards of it. You’ve got your ‘working class working class’, the miners, shipbuilders, steelworkers, you know true grit, salt of the earth who ate the end of the week get ten bob and a green apple for their sweat. And then you’ve got the ‘middle-class-working-class’: the Vanessa Redgraves, Paul Foots, ex-grammar school boys whose satchels were filled with Das Kapital and Biggles Holds His Own. You see them at universities with their collarless shirts and well-rounded vowels, like a cross between Prince Charles and When the Boat Comes In. And then you’ve got your upper-class-working-class, watered-down Wedgie Benns who lost their political virginity at a jolly wheeze at Twickers. They sit in their private saunas while the au pair turns the pages of the Morning Star and then they put ‘Vote Labour’ stickers at the back of their Rolls Royces.’
By the end of this speech Wolfie is very bitter – and the audience has gone quiet. This awkward moment of reflection is soon exploded however when Shirl points out that a big spider has crawled down Wolfie’s collar.
What to make of this peculiar moment? Wolfie, a working class young man bereft of a university education – like the author John Sullivan in fact - is resentful of those socialists who come from outside the ‘working class working class’ and yet claim to speak for them from their position of privilege. I doubt that Tony Benn ever had a sauna, let alone an au pair and Rolls Royce, yet he is brought into the mix. Benn, who in 1978 was leading a new generation of university-educated socialists – those with Das Kapital in their satchels – in the task of taking the Labour party into an unprecedented left-wing direction- in the name of the working class - was tarred by Wolfie's brush. http://stevenfielding.com/wolfie-smith-on-class/
're Cameron he is the one leader more popular than his party and the preferred voter PM I believe. I don't know who you see as the better alternative centre right option.
at present there isn't one on offer. But at best Cameron is heading back in to Coalition, subject to "events", more likely he'll be writing his memoirs.
UKIP will hurt the Conservatives, in the County Council elections, both by taking seats from them, and by splitting the centre-right vote in some wards.
But, I think that some people exaggerate their impact on their Conservatives. They will take not just votes from people who voted Conservative, in 2009, but also people who voted Lib Dem, Labour, BNP, and Independent, as well as non-voters. They'll pick up a lot of floating Conservative voters, who might be prepared to switch to Labour and Lib Dems, in previous mid-term elections, thereby blunting the challenge of the latter two parties in some wards. In places like Cambridgehsire and Devon, I could see them winning wards that the Lib Dems might otherwise hope to pick up, and in Norfolk and Staffordshrie, winning wards that Labour might otherwise hope to pick up.
The socio-economic profile of UKIP voters is very similar to that of Labour voters. That suggests that a lot of them will have voted Labour in 1997-2005, even if lots of them switched to the Conservatives in 2010/
So presumptious to think that ex tories, or ex any party actually, that say they will vote UKIP would rush back at a GE.
The Tories are the largest party in govt at the moment and have a leader that is pro EU, pro mass immigration, pro gay marriage, anti grammar school, anti low tax. Thats why their supporters are leaving them. Why would they trust him to be any different next time? He is PM now and these things are happening/not happening now!
The differences between a Labour or a Tory govt are miniscule. The difference between a Tory and UKIP govt would be massive. Thats why people are voting UKIP.
As far as Labour voters are concerned, there are a lot of working class voters who are anti posh boys like Osborne etc, but also anti mass immigration, anti gay marriage, anti benefit culture, completely anti any kind of 80s "loony lefty" nonsense.
Given that the Tories seem to be run by posh boys who don't seem to be anti anything on the second list unless they are told to be by focus groups, and labour appear to be pro all of the second list, who are the traditional working class going to vote for?
They are the segment of society who have been ignored/taken for granted by all major political parties for the last forty odd years while they curried favour with any minority they could patronise, and they have probably had enough
Indeed, much like François Hollande. I'm not sure you should take that as much consolation, though; the damage is the same whether caused by well-meaning naivety or something else.
As for unpicking the damaging bits of Labour's legacy, huge progress has been made. I won't bother listing it all again.
No need to list it, I'd give credit for progress in education and belatedly welfare ( though that's such a monstrous task it's a 2 or 3 Parlt. job ). But for the rest it mostly window dressing. The tax code is bigger, there's more regulation and the banks remain unreformed... I could go on but you sort of know what I'm going to say. I see Cameron as something of a tragic figure, he could have done much but frittered his political capital on trivia.
Why do these people not realise how quickly they'll be undone by their own actions?
RT @ChrisRogers92: 1 of LSE's 'revolutionary socialist' delegates is staying in the 4 star Copthorne for NUS - nice if you can get it < oops
When I was at university in Brum the woman who headed the SWP had a house in Selly Oak bought for her by her Dad, who also send a driver to pick her up at the end of each term.
Whenever I come across this sort of stuff - it reminds me of the infamous Citizen Smith sketch. Mr Sullivan was a strong lefty as was Mr Lindsay - yet they debunked it perfectly.
Wolfie: Well they’re going to get it whether they want it or not … They’re confused Shirl, they’re bewildered by the shifting sands of class. … The working class, yer actual working class, it’s suddenly become trendy so now you’ve got different standards of it. You’ve got your ‘working class working class’, the miners, shipbuilders, steelworkers, you know true grit, salt of the earth who ate the end of the week get ten bob and a green apple for their sweat. And then you’ve got the ‘middle-class-working-class’: the Vanessa Redgraves, Paul Foots, ex-grammar school boys whose satchels were filled with Das Kapital and Biggles Holds His Own. You see them at universities with their collarless shirts and well-rounded vowels, like a cross between Prince Charles and When the Boat Comes In. And then you’ve got your upper-class-working-class, watered-down Wedgie Benns who lost their political virginity at a jolly wheeze at Twickers. They sit in their private saunas while the au pair turns the pages of the Morning Star and then they put ‘Vote Labour’ stickers at the back of their Rolls Royces.’
By the end of this speech Wolfie is very bitter – and the audience has gone quiet. This awkward moment of reflection is soon exploded however when Shirl points out that a big spider has crawled down Wolfie’s collar.
What to make of this peculiar moment? Wolfie, a working class young man bereft of a university education – like the author John Sullivan in fact - is resentful of those socialists who come from outside the ‘working class working class’ and yet claim to speak for them from their position of privilege. I doubt that Tony Benn ever had a sauna, let alone an au pair and Rolls Royce, yet he is brought into the mix. Benn, who in 1978 was leading a new generation of university-educated socialists – those with Das Kapital in their satchels – in the task of taking the Labour party into an unprecedented left-wing direction- in the name of the working class - was tarred by Wolfie's brush. http://stevenfielding.com/wolfie-smith-on-class/
The self-righteous left is repulsive and utterly destructive - as can be seen most vividly in its triangulating toleration, nay indulgence, of religious reactionaries, just so long as they deliver the votes.
Tony Benn was among the most pernicious and damaging politicians of the 1970s and 1980s - the harm he did to the Labour Party was immense.
What the hell am I, as a Lib/Lab to do if my County Council choice is Con or UKIP? And I won't know until it's too late to stand a s "hopeless Left standard bearer"!
I've put a sizeable amount on them taking South Shields. Realistically, their best chance is to hold a seat they take at a by-election, so it seems that taking the double digits available available in SS and others.
UKIP is doing a brilliant job filling the role the LibDems historically did at by-elections: find local issue people feel passionately about, and encourage protest voting. (Yes, yes, yes, I know Europe is important too... but I suspect the Tyne Tunnel will win them many more votes than the EU will. Of course, moving funding of the TT from users to 'general taxation' basically means moving the cost from South Shields voters to - say - voters in Richmond-upon-Thames. And if you're in South Shields, what's not to like about that?)
Actually I think Tony Blair described this quite well in his book. Paraphrasing him here, but he said that the middle class left liked to think of the working class as a monolith that would stay the chirpy hard working salt of the earth forever, not realising that they were only working class because they hadnt made enough dough to be the middle class family they aspired to be. It was a Labour politicians role to give them a leg up on the way then leave them to it, not patronise them forever.
"The self-righteous left is repulsive and utterly destructive - as can be seen most vividly in its triangulating toleration, nay indulgence, of religious reactionaries, just so long as they deliver the votes"
Which is why Ken and reactionary gay/Jew-bashing Muslims rhetoric just bends my mind completely re vote grubbing.
As Khyberman noted so well - these people are socially very conservative for cultural reasons - why are they voting Labour at all given their viewpoints are so different? He makes several good observations.
"Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values. The Left have done a stellar job of putting them at odds.
Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values. The Conservatives have done a shoddy job of tapping into this.
Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values. The Left have used this against minorities to great effect.
Actually I think Tony Blair described this quite well in his book. Paraphrasing him here, but he said that the middle class left liked to think of the working class as a monolith that would stay the chirpy hard working salt of the earth forever, not realising that they were only working class because they hadnt made enough dough to be the middle class family they aspired to be. It was a Labour politicians role to give them a leg up on the way then leave them to it, not patronise them forever.
My grandmothers view, as the wife of a miner, was that no son of hers was going to work down the mines. So my father became a teacher, and it's gone on from there.
Actually I think Tony Blair described this quite well in his book. Paraphrasing him here, but he said that the middle class left liked to think of the working class as a monolith that would stay the chirpy hard working salt of the earth forever, not realising that they were only working class because they hadnt made enough dough to be the middle class family they aspired to be. It was a Labour politicians role to give them a leg up on the way then leave them to it, not patronise them forever.
My grandmothers view, as the wife of a miner, was that no son of hers was going to work down the mines. So my father became a teacher, and it's gone on from there.
There were no mines in North London, but that was pretty much the view that prevailed in my family too. But we also understood you needed more than determination, there had to be help too.
Actually I think Tony Blair described this quite well in his book. Paraphrasing him here, but he said that the middle class left liked to think of the working class as a monolith that would stay the chirpy hard working salt of the earth forever, not realising that they were only working class because they hadnt made enough dough to be the middle class family they aspired to be. It was a Labour politicians role to give them a leg up on the way then leave them to it, not patronise them forever.
As someone who was definitely working class but whose parents were desperate to be middle class - I can see and have seen on PB a very strange phenomenon.
If you aspire to something more - you're a sell-out, a Thatcherite, greedy, selfish, grasping or a lower form of life that cares for no one else - or horror A TOFF. I find this bizarre.
One can only aspire if you remain a Labour voter if you think the Left's ideological dogma is sacrosanct. Like comprehensive education or the NHS or whatever - its just so 1970s. What has possessed Labour to retread this failed Cuban bollox?
Today's Labour looks to me like Glasgow politics - you must die earlier, live in crap place and be disadvantaged - as otherwise you'll wake up and discover that everyone else has a better life if they don't vote Labour.
Richard N is right, the rise of UKIP is of course an absolute gift to Labour. But I expect many will drift back to the Tories come the business end of the Parliament.
The Tory problem is the more momentum UKIP have, the more they feel like a serious party worthy of real allegiance rather than a hissy protest receptacle.
Assuming the next election is already lost for the Tories, they probably need to squeeze UKIP down to single figures at least to avoid a total humiliation. Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
I think this is precisely what it is about. And Cameron's lecturing of Hollande & Merkel about the fragility of the EU is also about trying to prevent Tories drifting away to UKIP. It's a hopeless cause, as Sam's posts illustrate very well. many Tories have already written the party off and believe it to be no different from Labour.
Just as in the 1970s many Labour left-wingers believed that their government was no different from the Tories, and we all know what that belief led to - splits and many years in opposition.
Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
It's absolutely not going to stop the UKIP vote any more than banging on about the EU or banging on about immigation did. We will see in May just how successful a tactic it is.
I suspect it's more about Cammie fearing his own backbenchers since he seemingly won't get rid of his chum Osbrowne no matter how much of a toxic liability he is. Some of those backbenchers have actually noticed that Osbrowne incompetence and the economy are the number one problem for the tory party even if others continue to be 'near perfect' in their obliviousness to it. Add to that the continuing Eurosceptic backbench and Kipper suspicion that his cast iron EU referendum pledge is little more than an easily wriggled out of sham, and sooner or later they are going to get very stroppy indeed.
Of course it's beyond your comprehension, which is the point. You can't conceive of the electoral agenda outside the City dominated south east and haven't worked out that's where 60% of the nation's votes are.
I don't expect everything, quite frankly nor would I want it. What I do expect is a government which puts the economy first, which unpicks the Labour big government legacy instead of reinforcing it and which has policies for the bits of the country outside the City. How is it irrational not to vote Blue when you don't have policies for people in the rest of the state, if anything it's irrational to vote blue when you offer me nothing. As for Ed Milibogeyman he's inept not scary.
Which bit of trying to fix education and welfare is dominated by the interests of the South. Given the regional unemployment/dependence on public sector employment, I would have thought these are absolutely in the interests of the Midlands and the North.
It's an attempt to create a climate in which there is room for a thriving private sector.
Only so much you can do with Cable in a major economic post - and Cameron doesn't have much choice about that.
Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
. Add to that the continuing Eurosceptic backbench and Kipper suspicion that his cast iron EU referendum pledge is little more than an easily wriggled out of sham, and sooner or later they are going to get very stroppy indeed.
Well, Toilet Paper Dave has previous on his cast iron guarantees.
I wonder if defeat in 2015 will give rise to a more right wing New Tory party? It happened (eventually) in Canada.
Just been totting up my expenses for the 2012/13 tax year and it turns out that by sheer coincidence, and with no management of the figures on my part, I recorded *exactly* 10,000 miles of business travel last year. This is actually the threshold before the mileage allowance drops to a lower rate (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/travel.htm).
I have a spreadsheet of all my trips, including the route taken, reason for going and the distance as verified by google maps. My actual mileage was slightly higher because my route-planning was less than ideal, so no problem if anyone checks the odometer!
But to claim for precisely 10,000 miles must surely arouse suspicion. Does this look too much like I am cooking the books?
There are indications of a large drop in LD candidates. UKIP standing more than the LDs in Norfolk, Dorset and Anglesey.
On the Isle of Wight Council UKIP have 29 candidates against 7 for the Lib Dems. source ConHome.
LDs used to be strong in IoW and Dorset. In Norfolk they were strong in North and Norwich, how many candidates do they have there? In Anglesey, doesn't really matter.
I don't expect everything, quite frankly nor would I want it. What I do expect is a government which puts the economy first, which unpicks the Labour big government legacy instead of reinforcing it and which has policies for the bits of the country outside the City. How is it irrational not to vote Blue when you don't have policies for people in the rest of the state, if anything it's irrational to vote blue when you offer me nothing. As for Ed Milibogeyman he's inept not scary.
Which bit of trying to fix education and welfare is dominated by the interests of the South. Given the regional unemployment/dependence on public sector employment, I would have thought these are absolutely in the interests of the Midlands and the North.
It's an attempt to create a climate in which there is room for a thriving private sector.
Only so much you can do with Cable in a major economic post - and Cameron doesn't have much choice about that.
IIRC - another PBer noted that in the last YouGov poll, there was a bias against welfare handouts in the NE, Mids etc - ie those areas which have been most subsided in England.
That'd make an interesting thread discussion if the subsamples weren't a one-off.
@MichaelPDeacon: We're not doing "planned, hermetically sealed" campaigning, declared Ed M, in front of the students he'd brought in by train for the cameras
Richard N is right, the rise of UKIP is of course an absolute gift to Labour. But I expect many will drift back to the Tories come the business end of the Parliament.
The Tory problem is the more momentum UKIP have, the more they feel like a serious party worthy of real allegiance rather than a hissy protest receptacle.
Assuming the next election is already lost for the Tories, they probably need to squeeze UKIP down to single figures at least to avoid a total humiliation. Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
Why do you think IDS's reform to the benefits system is a lurch to the right? The people most satisfied with these reforms will be the working class, and I wouldn't considered them to be all right-wingers.
1) The final sentence is "If done right, full employment could be the silver bullet, not just for the welfare debate that Labour has manifestly failed to win, but for a better kind of economy." Note the subclause.
2) Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office. If Ed Miliband is to make a persuasive commitment to full employment, he's going to have to explain why his government would be different from every other Labour government so far.
They are 2/1 to win a seat AT the next GE (so would be a bit less if the bookies were arking up odds on 'any time before the end of the election'.)
I've taken the 2/1. At the very least, it is bound to shorten over the next few months.
I now think the bookies have gone too far, and that 2/1 is tight-fisted and mean. UKIP have a lot of big hurdles to jump to get an MP, not least FPTP. I still put their chances at around 5/1 AT the GE. If we make it "up to and including the election", i.e. including possible by-election victories and defections in the interim, I'd rate their chances at maybe 5/2?
If you calculate it percentage terms we're not that far apart - 2/1=33.3%, 5/2 = 28.5%, 5/1 = 16.6%.
A lot will turn on how the elections go on May 2. (Is S Shields definitely on that day too?) And then the Euros. And then the not insiderable factoid of when (not if) Farage says or does something so daft that the electorate suddenly thinks 'erm...maybe not.'
Wish I could get odds on him doing so, but how would one frame the bet?
1) The final sentence is "If done right, full employment could be the silver bullet, not just for the welfare debate that Labour has manifestly failed to win, but for a better kind of economy." Note the subclause."
You're kidding?
FULL EMPLOYMENT? When was the last time that was reality - in any country bar the Soviet Union?
Well, Toilet Paper Dave has previous on his cast iron guarantees.
Cammie's EU speech and IN/OUT referendum pledge (including the questions wording) is predicated on there being a new treaty and subsequent negotiations. If there is no treaty (as govt. spokespeople have now conceded is entirely possible) then there can hardly be a referendum based on any new deal or settlement since that will not have occurred.
I wonder if defeat in 2015 will give rise to a more right wing New Tory party? It happened (eventually) in Canada.
If there is a defeat there will be a new leader and the tory party will divide into IN and OUT with those in favour of OUT arguing that they need a leader explicitly in favour of campaigning to be OUT while those who favour IN will want a leader who will campaign on being IN.
2) Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office. If Ed Miliband is to make a persuasive commitment to full employment, he's going to have to explain why his government would be different from every other Labour government so far.
If only. Do you really think the fair and balanced BBC and its media acolytes will even raise the question? Wonder how much the new media will influence the election. And therein depends how hard the questions for Labour will be. I'm not holding my breath.
But to claim for precisely 10,000 miles must surely arouse suspicion. Does this look too much like I am cooking the books?
I'm not a tax expert, but claim what you drove for. No point in underclaiming & (assuming your affairs aren't that complicated) I suspect that HMRC won't bother to investigate - and it sounds like, if they do, you have the backup.
FULL EMPLOYMENT? When was the last time that was reality - in any country bar the Soviet Union?
It's an economic term of art, and may not mean what you think it does. In particular it does *not* refer to a situation in every single person in the labour pool has a job. It's about eliminating *cyclical* unemployment, and unlike "everyone has to have a job" it is not an obviously-bonkers policy objective.
My grandmothers view, as the wife of a miner, was that no son of hers was going to work down the mines. So my father became a teacher, and it's gone on from there.
There were no mines in North London, but that was pretty much the view that prevailed in my family too. But we also understood you needed more than determination, there had to be help too.
11+ and Grammar Schools provided the opportunity in my father's, and that of his siblings, case. Even pre-WWII.
FULL EMPLOYMENT? When was the last time that was reality - in any country bar the Soviet Union?
Throughout much of Labour's term in office we were at, or close to, full employment.
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
Well, Toilet Paper Dave has previous on his cast iron guarantees.
If there is a defeat there will be a new leader and the tory party will divide into IN and OUT with those in favour of OUT arguing that they need a leader explicitly in favour of campaigning to be OUT while those who favour IN will want the a leader who will campaign on being IN.
Possibly, but I think the INs are in a large minority.
Richard N is right, the rise of UKIP is of course an absolute gift to Labour. But I expect many will drift back to the Tories come the business end of the Parliament.
The Tory problem is the more momentum UKIP have, the more they feel like a serious party worthy of real allegiance rather than a hissy protest receptacle.
Assuming the next election is already lost for the Tories, they probably need to squeeze UKIP down to single figures at least to avoid a total humiliation. Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
Why do you think IDS's reform to the benefits system is a lurch to the right? The people most satisfied with these reforms will be the working class, and I wouldn't considered them to be all right-wingers.
And the people most adversely affected by them will be working class too: working class people in work.
But to claim for precisely 10,000 miles must surely arouse suspicion. Does this look too much like I am cooking the books?
Keep a record of this thread. If the revenue come a-calling, it'll provide a little extra evidence that you weren't trying it on. Unless that was the plan all along! You're far too Machiavellian for me...
My grandmothers view, as the wife of a miner, was that no son of hers was going to work down the mines. So my father became a teacher, and it's gone on from there.
There were no mines in North London, but that was pretty much the view that prevailed in my family too. But we also understood you needed more than determination, there had to be help too.
11+ and Grammar Schools provided the opportunity in my father's, and that of his siblings, case. Even pre-WWII.
And they helped me too. But so did a lot more: universal healthcare, free school meals, family allowance, unemployment benefits, having the state meet my mortgage payments when I was out of work and so on. That's why I will always see the state as an enabler rather than as a hindrance.
Possibly, but I think the INs are in a large minority.
I don't have the numbers to hand but the BOOers OUTs in the tory party while substantial are likely not even the majority. At the moment at least. When Cammie put a three line whip against them when they demanded an IN/OUT referendum there was a huge rebellion yet I don't think it was the majority of tory MPs.
The INs also have the party leadership and most of the big party funders behind them, again at this point. It may change.
Just been totting up my expenses for the 2012/13 tax year and it turns out that by sheer coincidence, and with no management of the figures on my part, I recorded *exactly* 10,000 miles of business travel last year. This is actually the threshold before the mileage allowance drops to a lower rate (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/travel.htm).
I have a spreadsheet of all my trips, including the route taken, reason for going and the distance as verified by google maps. My actual mileage was slightly higher because my route-planning was less than ideal, so no problem if anyone checks the odometer!
But to claim for precisely 10,000 miles must surely arouse suspicion. Does this look too much like I am cooking the books?
No. Go ahead and claim, especially as you have the records. Nobody knows precisely how many miles they do and I would suggest that rounding to the nearest 100 in a claim like yours would be fine anyway. HMRC are not that bloody picky.
[I understand your concerns because it reminds me of a time many years ago when i was doing a set of accounts of a decent sized business and the the result was zero - i.e. nil profit, nil loss. I added £42 of spurious income to avoid suspicion!]
So those 2.5m people were a figment of the ONS imagination?
Seriously - on the trolling stakes, you're scoring 0/10.
Give up or try a great deal harder.
I'll post it again. Try reading the words this time, preferably in order, and see how it goes-
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
When over 2m don't have a job and there are 3x generations of families that have no experience of working - I'd say that's not FULL EMPLOYMENT by anyone's yardstick.
It's a silly 70s nirvana that demeans those who are actually trying to make a go of it and spend 3 months on the dole between jobs.
Just been totting up my expenses for the 2012/13 tax year and it turns out that by sheer coincidence, and with no management of the figures on my part, I recorded *exactly* 10,000 miles of business travel last year. This is actually the threshold before the mileage allowance drops to a lower rate (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/travel.htm).
I have a spreadsheet of all my trips, including the route taken, reason for going and the distance as verified by google maps. My actual mileage was slightly higher because my route-planning was less than ideal, so no problem if anyone checks the odometer!
But to claim for precisely 10,000 miles must surely arouse suspicion. Does this look too much like I am cooking the books?
I doubnt anyone will look, will they? Unless the numbers are huge or there are significant, machine-readable year-on-year discrepancies I always thought that any further investigaiton of submissions is totally random.
My grandmothers view, as the wife of a miner, was that no son of hers was going to work down the mines. So my father became a teacher, and it's gone on from there.
There were no mines in North London, but that was pretty much the view that prevailed in my family too. But we also understood you needed more than determination, there had to be help too.
11+ and Grammar Schools provided the opportunity in my father's, and that of his siblings, case. Even pre-WWII.
And they helped me too. But so did a lot more: universal healthcare, free school meals, family allowance, unemployment benefits, having the state meet my mortgage payments when I was out of work and so on. That's why I will always see the state as an enabler rather than as a hindrance.
We were lucky enough to never need those, SO, apart, of course, from healthcare. Family allowances were helpful, of course. But as to your conclusion, I completely agree.
Comments
A loss to the discussion - especially so given that after dismissing UKIP for a very long time - its now a regular article subject matter on PB.
Funny ole non-aligned world.
What is going on with his incessant nannying? We can't choose to spend our own money on what we want to unless his middle-class Marxist will-changing Primrose Hill intellectual approval is stamped on it?
I'd slap him with a glove if I met him.
Warwickshire: 22 UKIP (Lab-Con-Green 62 LD 36 TUSC 22 BNP 8)
Nottinghamshire: 61 UKIP (Lab 67 Con 62 LD 51 Greens 19)
Lancashire, full slate in Chorley, Rossendale, Fylde, South Ribble, missing 1 in Wyre and Preston, 3 out of 6 in Burnley. 3 authorities missing.
Leicestershire: 42 out of 55
Norfolk: 69 out of 97
Gloucestershire: 39 out of 53
Somerset: 47 out of 55
Oxfordshire: just 5 out of 14 in Oxford, missing one in South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, full slate in West Oxfordshire and Cherwell
Northamptonshire: 44 out of 57
Wiltshire: 54 out of 98 (but Lab and LD are also at 61 and 60. 6 Tories are elected unopposed)
Northumberland: around 22 out of 67
Labour and the Liberal Democrats today launch their campaigns for the local elections on 2 May, which will be significant as one of the last major tests of the political weather ahead of the general election. In 2009, the Tories swept the board in these seats – mainly naturally right-of-centre, shire areas – so the only question a few months ago was how many seats they would lose, and whether it would be Labour or the Liberal Democrats that took the most off them.
What has since complicated those calculations has been Ukip’s dramatic emergence, which is why the leaders of all three parties will be watching to see whether Nigel Farage can sustain the momentum he generated in the Eastleigh by-election in February. The wild card of British politics is still coasting along on 17 per cent in the polls, well below the 28 per cent it won in Eastleigh but enough to inflict massive damage on the Tories unless its bubble deflates before May.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/editorial-ukips-dramatic-emergence-may-yet-throw-the-may-local-elections-wide-open-8563291.html
This is perfect.
EdM finally wakes up. For far too long any old bunch of jokers could come and set up on the high street like some ridiculous free for all. This is a much better idea.
I would like an artisan cheese shop, an independent wine merchant, a shop selling those t-shirts with the funny comments on them designed by some bloke from St. Martins’, and a Nespresso machine repair shop.
Who do I send my list to?
'How long before Ed's latest 'contributory benefits' wheeze is ruled illegal under EU law?'
At least Ed's confirmed that he will be increasing the welfare budget,since his party has been telling us for weeks that you can't live on £53 per week.
Another expensive program to be paid by taxing bankers bonus's, NI & income tax increases.
The two Ed's & their taxes will make Denis Healey look like a wimp.
As I said you convinced me to not vote blue next time with one of your throw away statements that disaffected blues have no alternative but to come back. Instead of Sir Samuel Pepys I saw your hero Louis XIV and staring from your avatar Sir Richard Nabob . ;-)
The lack of these on my High St was the reason Woolies shut down - and was replaced by ICELAND...
I am worried about Spurs having to sell Gareth Bale because we are going to blow getting a CL place again.
I am not worried that you did not understand I realised you were not seriously suggesting a physical attack on Ed Miliband. I expected that!
We are very aggressive today , last thread you were insulting Scottish culture and Scotland in general and now you are abusing SO for having an opinion other than your Tory viewpoint. Tut Tut.
Of course, I hope that disaffected blues will come back when faced with the actual choice of Miliband vs Cameron, but it's entirely up to them. I can't force people to be rational; all I can do is try to assess, for betting purposes, the extent to which they'll be irrational. Clearly at the moment a vote for UKIP (in a by-election or a local election) is a cost-free protest, but the nihilistic mood of cutting off your nose to spite your face does seem quite strong, and may well continue in 2015. That's why I'm rebalancing my investments away from the UK.
Aww - if objecting to being force fed Andy Stewart on New Year or suggesting someone is slapped with a glove is *aggressive* in your book... step outside laddie - and I'll show you a thing or two ;^ )
'EdM finally wakes up. For far too long any old bunch of jokers could come and set up on the high street like some ridiculous free for all. This is a much better idea.'
Will Ed's policy survive until this evening?
Hilariously Dan Hodges was right - doing nothing and having no policies wasn't a good idea after all.
Egg on a few "nailed on" faces round here.
Many of us who don't intend to vote Labour in GE2015 have been saying for several years that bandwaggoning a la Hague is a bad idea.
And lo, it came to pass. Labour are only an average of 10pts ahead in mid-term and in a dreadful economic state - and with votes supposedly from the Tories leaking in droves to the Kippers.
WTF does EdM need to do before he can break away - clearly not what he's been doing vs a neutered Tory HMG and LDs playing Schroedinger's Gov.
Those PB tories whining about that have had their usual amusing memory loss.
Baroness Warsi implies UKIP / BNP deal over voting (04May12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5w4ylfQycM
It didn't just "come to pass" nor was it the result of being mid term. It was a direct result of the toxic Osbrowne's omnishambles budget as we can all clearly see here.
" The attitude of disaffected blues seems to be inchoate anger that they can't have everything they want, so they'd rather have nothing they want"
I'm torn.
I like what Gove is doing, and IDS and May on the whole - but despite my natural tendency to stick with a choice I've made [in for a penny/pound sort] - I'm getting really disappointed with Mr Cameron despite thinking he's a fairly straight and decent sort. I suspect his wife is more on my wavelength when she told him that 'society isn't the same as the State". Sage words.
Too much nannying and backsliding. If he wants to be Ken Clark then fine - but that's not what I put my X in the box for at GE2010.
I don't expect everything, quite frankly nor would I want it. What I do expect is a government which puts the economy first, which unpicks the Labour big government legacy instead of reinforcing it and which has policies for the bits of the country outside the City. How is it irrational not to vote Blue when you don't have policies for people in the rest of the state, if anything it's irrational to vote blue when you offer me nothing. As for Ed Milibogeyman he's inept not scary.
"Too much nannying and backsliding. If he wants to be Ken Clark then fine - but that's not what I put my X in the box for at GE2010."
My dear Plato, I'm surprised that it has taken this long to realise that Cammo is 'all fur coat and no knickers'. He is an empty suit, without a single worthwhile idea, ever since he was voted leader. Those same voters are now deserting the conservative party en mass.
Can it be that the Plato iceberg is now beginning to melt?
RT @ChrisRogers92: 1 of LSE's 'revolutionary socialist' delegates is staying in the 4 star Copthorne for NUS - nice if you can get it < oops
Indeed.
The Tory problem is the more momentum UKIP have, the more they feel like a serious party worthy of real allegiance rather than a hissy protest receptacle.
Assuming the next election is already lost for the Tories, they probably need to squeeze UKIP down to single figures at least to avoid a total humiliation. Perhaps that is what their recent lurch Rightwards on benefits is about, shoring up the core?
're Cameron he is the one leader more popular than his party and the preferred voter PM I believe. I don't know who you see as the better alternative centre right option.
As for unpicking the damaging bits of Labour's legacy, huge progress has been made. I won't bother listing it all again.
Dearie me, what an ugly avatar. How has everyone else changed theirs?
UKIP will hurt the Conservatives, in the County Council elections, both by taking seats from them, and by splitting the centre-right vote in some wards.
But, I think that some people exaggerate their impact on their Conservatives. They will take not just votes from people who voted Conservative, in 2009, but also people who voted Lib Dem, Labour, BNP, and Independent, as well as non-voters. They'll pick up a lot of floating Conservative voters, who might be prepared to switch to Labour and Lib Dems, in previous mid-term elections, thereby blunting the challenge of the latter two parties in some wards. In places like Cambridgehsire and Devon, I could see them winning wards that the Lib Dems might otherwise hope to pick up, and in Norfolk and Staffordshrie, winning wards that Labour might otherwise hope to pick up.
The socio-economic profile of UKIP voters is very similar to that of Labour voters. That suggests that a lot of them will have voted Labour in 1997-2005, even if lots of them switched to the Conservatives in 2010/
The Tories are the largest party in govt at the moment and have a leader that is pro EU, pro mass immigration, pro gay marriage, anti grammar school, anti low tax. Thats why their supporters are leaving them. Why would they trust him to be any different next time? He is PM now and these things are happening/not happening now!
The differences between a Labour or a Tory govt are miniscule. The difference between a Tory and UKIP govt would be massive. Thats why people are voting UKIP.
As far as Labour voters are concerned, there are a lot of working class voters who are anti posh boys like Osborne etc, but also anti mass immigration, anti gay marriage, anti benefit culture, completely anti any kind of 80s "loony lefty" nonsense.
Given that the Tories seem to be run by posh boys who don't seem to be anti anything on the second list unless they are told to be by focus groups, and labour appear to be pro all of the second list, who are the traditional working class going to vote for?
They are the segment of society who have been ignored/taken for granted by all major political parties for the last forty odd years while they curried favour with any minority they could patronise, and they have probably had enough
I could go on but you sort of know what I'm going to say. I see Cameron as something of a tragic figure, he could have done much but frittered his political capital on trivia.
They are 2/1 to win a seat AT the next GE (so would be a bit less if the bookies were arking up odds on 'any time before the end of the election'.)
I've taken the 2/1. At the very least, it is bound to shorten over the next few months.
Tony Benn was among the most pernicious and damaging politicians of the 1970s and 1980s - the harm he did to the Labour Party was immense.
I've put a sizeable amount on them taking South Shields. Realistically, their best chance is to hold a seat they take at a by-election, so it seems that taking the double digits available available in SS and others.
UKIP is doing a brilliant job filling the role the LibDems historically did at by-elections: find local issue people feel passionately about, and encourage protest voting. (Yes, yes, yes, I know Europe is important too... but I suspect the Tyne Tunnel will win them many more votes than the EU will. Of course, moving funding of the TT from users to 'general taxation' basically means moving the cost from South Shields voters to - say - voters in Richmond-upon-Thames. And if you're in South Shields, what's not to like about that?)
Actually I think Tony Blair described this quite well in his book. Paraphrasing him here, but he said that the middle class left liked to think of the working class as a monolith that would stay the chirpy hard working salt of the earth forever, not realising that they were only working class because they hadnt made enough dough to be the middle class family they aspired to be. It was a Labour politicians role to give them a leg up on the way then leave them to it, not patronise them forever.
"The self-righteous left is repulsive and utterly destructive - as can be seen most vividly in its triangulating toleration, nay indulgence, of religious reactionaries, just so long as they deliver the votes"
Which is why Ken and reactionary gay/Jew-bashing Muslims rhetoric just bends my mind completely re vote grubbing.
As Khyberman noted so well - these people are socially very conservative for cultural reasons - why are they voting Labour at all given their viewpoints are so different? He makes several good observations.
"Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values.
The Left have done a stellar job of putting them at odds.
Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values.
The Conservatives have done a shoddy job of tapping into this.
Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values.
The Left have used this against minorities to great effect.
Most ethnic minority values coincide with traditional conservative values.
The Left have successfully painted them as victims. An easy sell" http://bantiblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/racism.html
If you aspire to something more - you're a sell-out, a Thatcherite, greedy, selfish, grasping or a lower form of life that cares for no one else - or horror A TOFF. I find this bizarre.
One can only aspire if you remain a Labour voter if you think the Left's ideological dogma is sacrosanct. Like comprehensive education or the NHS or whatever - its just so 1970s. What has possessed Labour to retread this failed Cuban bollox?
Today's Labour looks to me like Glasgow politics - you must die earlier, live in crap place and be disadvantaged - as otherwise you'll wake up and discover that everyone else has a better life if they don't vote Labour.
Just as in the 1970s many Labour left-wingers believed that their government was no different from the Tories, and we all know what that belief led to - splits and many years in opposition.
I suspect it's more about Cammie fearing his own backbenchers since he seemingly won't get rid of his chum Osbrowne no matter how much of a toxic liability he is. Some of those backbenchers have actually noticed that Osbrowne incompetence and the economy are the number one problem for the tory party even if others continue to be 'near perfect' in their obliviousness to it. Add to that the continuing Eurosceptic backbench and Kipper suspicion that his cast iron EU referendum pledge is little more than an easily wriggled out of sham, and sooner or later they are going to get very stroppy indeed.
It's an attempt to create a climate in which there is room for a thriving private sector.
Only so much you can do with Cable in a major economic post - and Cameron doesn't have much choice about that.
On the Isle of Wight Council UKIP have 29 candidates against 7 for the Lib Dems.
source ConHome.
I wonder if defeat in 2015 will give rise to a more right wing New Tory party? It happened (eventually) in Canada.
Just been totting up my expenses for the 2012/13 tax year and it turns out that by sheer coincidence, and with no management of the figures on my part, I recorded *exactly* 10,000 miles of business travel last year. This is actually the threshold before the mileage allowance drops to a lower rate (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/travel.htm).
I have a spreadsheet of all my trips, including the route taken, reason for going and the distance as verified by google maps. My actual mileage was slightly higher because my route-planning was less than ideal, so no problem if anyone checks the odometer!
But to claim for precisely 10,000 miles must surely arouse suspicion. Does this look too much like I am cooking the books?
That'd make an interesting thread discussion if the subsamples weren't a one-off.
http://labourlist.org/2013/04/full-employment-could-be-the-silver-bullet-for-labour/
Two points of interest in particular:
1) The final sentence is "If done right, full employment could be the silver bullet, not just for the welfare debate that Labour has manifestly failed to win, but for a better kind of economy." Note the subclause.
2) Every Labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when it entered office. If Ed Miliband is to make a persuasive commitment to full employment, he's going to have to explain why his government would be different from every other Labour government so far.
A lot will turn on how the elections go on May 2. (Is S Shields definitely on that day too?) And then the Euros. And then the not insiderable factoid of when (not if) Farage says or does something so daft that the electorate suddenly thinks 'erm...maybe not.'
Wish I could get odds on him doing so, but how would one frame the bet?
"Two points of interest in particular:
1) The final sentence is "If done right, full employment could be the silver bullet, not just for the welfare debate that Labour has manifestly failed to win, but for a better kind of economy." Note the subclause."
You're kidding?
FULL EMPLOYMENT? When was the last time that was reality - in any country bar the Soviet Union?
If there is a defeat there will be a new leader and the tory party will divide into IN and OUT
with those in favour of OUT arguing that they need a leader explicitly in favour of campaigning to be OUT while those who favour IN will want a leader who will campaign on being IN.
@JohnRentoul: "Is full employment Labour's silver bullet?" Fine #QTWTAIN & #BannedList in one http://labourlist.org/2013/04/full-employment-could-be-the-silver-bullet-for-labour/
1997 Labour promised 'no more boom and bust'
2015 Labour promise ' full employment'
What could possibly go wrong?
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
Though I'm sure you knew that. Didn't you?
Anyone who can't get a job gets paid to stay home.
", the abolition of long term “cyclical” unemployment "
With a stroke it was done
Labour have been caught with their socks off here - they are flailing wildly.
Employment is rising - thanks to the private sector and is higher than when Labour were booted out for being crap.
" Throughout much of Labour's term in office we were at, or close to, full employment"
So those 2.5m people were a figment of the ONS imagination?
Seriously - on the trolling stakes, you're scoring 0/10.
Give up or try a great deal harder.
The INs also have the party leadership and most of the big party funders behind them, again at this point. It may change.
[I understand your concerns because it reminds me of a time many years ago when i was doing a set of accounts of a decent sized business and the the result was zero - i.e. nil profit, nil loss. I added £42 of spurious income to avoid suspicion!]
Full employment, of course, refers to the minimum level of unemployment that is economically possible. It doesn't mean that every single person has a job.
When over 2m don't have a job and there are 3x generations of families that have no experience of working - I'd say that's not FULL EMPLOYMENT by anyone's yardstick.
It's a silly 70s nirvana that demeans those who are actually trying to make a go of it and spend 3 months on the dole between jobs.
But as to your conclusion, I completely agree.
So expect UKIP to take votes from Conservative right wingers, Labour working class and Lib Dem protesters.