Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I’m starting to think that UKIP could surprise us at GE2015
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I’m starting to think that UKIP could surprise us at GE2015
Over the past month UKIP has been out of the news for all but about two days yet as the chart above shows this has hardly impacted on its YouGov poll numbers.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Wow.
Ukip surge or purge ?!?
Why on earth someone who professes to be a expert on predicting electoral outcomes should think that there is a correlation between a party's competence and its electoral success is quite beyond me. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Not for me, thanks.
Sweet fucking Jesus. A WILD ANIMAL has 'moved the goalposts'. Whatever side of the cull debate you're on those are some staggering words to come out of a minister's mouth.
Best PM UKIP VI:
Cameron: 33
Miliband: 5
Other: 60
Mike said Ukip might surprise us ... I noted that might be an economic policy that passed muster.
Please note other party political economic policies are available for open derision.
The standard (Inflated before the hike) price will be frozen for the time. The 'offers' that anyone who gives two shits about how much they pay will be completely crap compared to the counterfactual, and thanks to Dave there'll only be about 3 of them to choose from.
We'll be stitched up by the pair of them.
Libya's PM has been seized by gunmen:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24470850
Also, I say 'Good morning, everyone' almost every morning.
» show previous quotes
Don't know about the last 40 years - but the SNP's report on the last 21 says:
"One of the papers, written by a top economic adviser to the government, explains that Scotland ran a deficit for 20 of the last 21 years – even during the boom years."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451611/Revealed-A-devastating-dossier-financial-realities-Scottish-indepedence.html#ixzz2hIeLR600
Funnily enough they were just saying on the radio this morning that if Scotland had had its own oil it would have paid off all its debts in the 80's and been debt free today with a healthy oil fund like Norway.
Also just listening to Badger stuttering on how OIL is a curse and that Scotland could never be trusted to know how to be able to spend the money .........LOL.
If he gets anything other than the easiest of questions his lies are obvious and his stuttering gets worse and worse. We can only hope Salmond debates with him , it will be a massacre.
» show previous quotes
Because you are making a commitment for the future which you expect the UK government to honour in the event of the Pension fund being insufficient. Or would you rather not have that commitment from the UK government?
I will repeat again , it is paid out of Scottish tax revenue we do not need a lender of last resort, do they insist on double funds for English and welsh pensions, try answering the question
Our political parties, over successive governments, have royally fecked up energy policy and security, and the fact that Ed Milliband was actually involved in this only 3 years ago, and still thinks he's the man to fix it now, is truly astounding. Neither the Tories or Labour can crow about energy, really.
It's madness that we're running the risks of the lights going out because this and the previous government aren't building sufficient generation facilities and are closing (or have closed) perfectly good power stations, largely due to their greenist beliefs.
Labour deserves more censure as they inherited good economic times, in stark contrast to the Coalition, and building power plants can't be done overnight, but the Coalition isn't blameless.
The price is at the top end of what the government was hoping for, after applications massively outstripped the number of shares on offer, BBC business editor Robert Peston reported."
Thank you Mr. Peston for that priceless example of the blindingly obvious. Is the term "the BBC has learned ...." the new equivalent of yesterday's equally patronising "the BBC understands ..." ?
Incidentally, the Japan early discussion thread is up: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/japan-early-discussion.html
P1 and P2 happen in the early hours tomorrow morning, so the pre-qualifying piece should be up on Friday.
Changing tack slightly, I didn't see or listen to PMQs yesterday but I gather an on-the-ball Labour backbencher (Graham Jones?) asked the PM why it was right to interfere in the housing market with Help to Buy but wrong to enforce price freezes on the energy generation companies. Great question, and I'll have to look up what Cameron said in response. Unless someone can save me the effort...? (Mind you, I'm hardly expecting that Cameron gave a sober and considered answer; that doesn't really happen at PMQs, does it!?)
If those figures are correct, would you expect no above-inflation price increase?
The Tories could fight the election on the basis of their economic policies delivering good results for Britain, but if most people don't feel better off because real incomes have not increased to cover cost of living rises, then the Tories may just p*ss people off. This is why Labour are talking about cost of living and energy price freezes. The Tories describe this as left wing, but yesterday we learnt that the Tory led government want to curb Train fare rises. Governments of the left and right interfere with the markets all the time.
I suspect you also have the policy of increasing Defence spending, which I whole-heartedly agree with, but these things have to be credible.
OK, I admit that I'm an ignoramus on psephology (professional guesswork) but I expect, as do most people, that Ukip will do well in the Euros and slump at the General Election. Farage seems aware of this and has stated that the next target is those Labour voters who are socially more right wing. And there are quite a few of them.
The right wing/left wing split seems to be a lazy classification. I know many Labour voters who are economically left but socially right. They vote Labour and see no attraction in Cameron, who is both right-wing economically and socially Blair-ite.
The problem for Ukip is the one that has always confronted the LDs - the wasted vote and the inertia effect.
How does Ukip peel off enough of the Mrs Duffys? If they don't, the Metropolitan Milliband Labour party will form the next Government. If he does, Cameron will probably triumph, as he may well do if Ukip implodes.
Perhaps Ukip need another electoral cycle, but I'm sure MikeK will disagree.
But it's factually true that when I meet a UKIP voter he (it's usually a chap) nearly always (politely) explains it mainly in terms of being against the rest. I don't think we should get worked up about it - these are disenchanted voters expressing their view democratically, and I'm sorry they feel that way, but they're entitled to their views.
Edited extra bit: that's at a General Election, incidentally. I don't mind voting for them at the European elections (have done before and plan on doing so again).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10368203/Top-earners-to-pay-third-of-all-income-tax-despite-rate-cut.html
But I'm really concerned about the long-term implications. Do you think the talk of undercutting investment in new power stations and of large pre-election price rises is all a load of rubbish? Or would you view those outcomes as a price worth paying for Labour winning the next election?
And Cameron is playing catch up. It still doesn't compensate for all the previous feck ups, and it's fair for voters to mistrust Milliband, given his previous post at Energy. It goes without saying that the Tories haven't covered themselves with glory on the subject over the past 3 years.
http://www.ukip.org/issues-2/policy-pages/defence
Energy company SSE says government levies add £120 to household bills and the figure will rise to £200. Partly why their prices are rising.
Thanks Ed....
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/09/greg-barker-bbc-climate-change-sceptics
I'm happy to be "psephologically illiterate". The historians and psephologists are good at explaining why something has happened, but only afterwards. Not very useful for betting purposes or for predicting the future.
I doubt if Ukip will make much impact on Labour voters this time, but if Ed gets in and cocks up. either economically or socially ....?
Quite a long document so I skimmed it, but agree with much of what I read.
These are Ed's energy prices rises, he wanted these inflation busting energy tax hikes when he was Enviro Sec.
Oh no.... look at me I'm linking from guido.. what a bad PBTory I am
blah, blah, blah...
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/miliband-unveils-first-energy-price-increase-2013101080226
"Miliband said:
“I want to thank SSE for acting so promptly. They understood every word I said in my excellent speech.
“They have taken an early lead in the ‘race to the cap’. Well done.”
He added: “I hope the other energy companies will follow suit and use the next 18 months to roll out as many price hikes as they possibly can before I become prime minister of this great country."
"A spokesman for SSE said: “We are looking forward to raising prices with Mr Miliband until he becomes prime minister of this great country and then working with him closely to make sure the price cap never happens”"
1. Energy companies always jack up prices as Winter arrives. Clever for Labour again on their shallow cut-through soundbite policy. C
2. Council Tax has been frozen and is taken for granted now but should be banged on about over and over by the coalition, as with the fuel escalator to contrast with this one policy of Labours'. That clip from Miliband on Marr in 2009 about rising energy costs needs to get on to HIGNFY or similar somehow.
3. Those equating selling something in to an existing market (gold) with a primary offering where there is no market price yet are investment illiterates. Quelle surprise.
4. UKIP doing well in 2015 as OGH speculates presumably risks his bet on the Tories for Euros 2014?
5. If Adonis isn't already a GOAT for HS2 then he should be.
Andrew Adonis@Andrew_Adonis6m
Discussing HS2, and its huge benefits for the NW, with Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24465157
Maybe he can also conform how much economic growth he is prepared to sacrifice if he is ever elected PM.
'Yesterday Guido dug out Miliband’s interview where he admitted his green policies would force up energy bills, and that he would sacrifice economic growth if it meant he could try to stop climate change. Well it doesn’t end there. Back when he was Energy Secretary, the Labour leader gave the LSE Ralph Miliband lecture. On November 19th 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:
“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
That same month Miliband told parliament:
“We need to be candid about the issue because it is a very big challenge. The pressures on energy prices will be upwards in the coming decade’”
Most damning of all, in January 2010:
“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”
In his own words, Miliband says his policies would cause energy price rises. What was that about a cost of living crisis?'
I'd prefer if the energy companies didn't manipulate the market to rinse consumers for millions. Maybe that's just me. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
Best prices - Dunfermline by-election
Lab 4/11 (Coral)
SNP 5/2 (William Hill)
LD 51/1 (Betfair)
Ind 100/1 (Ladbrokes)
Grn 125/1
UKIP 125/1
Con 200/1
This ain't really about energy prices for our politicians, its purely politics, and that's a disgrace. We need a coherent energy policy, but our governments, of any colour, don't ever seem to have one.
What would be amazing, would be a cross party task force on this. Forget the politics, concentrate on the country's needs for a change.
Huppert is a green jihadi who would like motorists flayed alive - yet strangely was anti-guided bus until it turned out to be popular.
They are both too dangerous and radical and more interested in pushing their misguided agendas than being a good MP for the city.
So will vote Con as always.
Ed may have played this energy card too early - broo haa now, even the LDs feel the chill so some green levies that he personally implemented get cut or delayed and the outcome is Ed = Mr Freeze but the fops give you a cut.
.. and the rich boys come up smelling of roses as always.
Who started the wind farm boom?
Each time he was propping up a bar whilst chatting to fans. Top bloke. ;-)
http://order-order.com/2013/10/10/green-eds-cost-of-living-crisis-admits-your-bills-would-rise/
On November 19th 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:
“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”
January 2010:
“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”
Enough to freeze the balls of a brass monkey.
Today we'll see the real test of which party leader is prepared to make an effort to secure that all important Mumsnet vote. Who's going to be the first to crack and offer an online Q&A to discuss this hot issue? It's the story on everyone's, erm, lips. Will Date Night Dave tweet photos from the bedside table? Does Ed prefer a 2 Year Cap? And how many beakers has Clegg had?
http://metro.co.uk/2013/10/09/mumsnet-asks-the-internets-weirdest-question-ever-do-you-have-a-penis-beaker-4140154/
And for the original thread...
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_classics/1875847-Do-you-dunk-your-penis
Gentlemen, start your beakers.
'Sir Menzies Campbell to stand down as MP in 2015'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24466721
... and yet the funny thing is, even though TSE featured this story on the previous thread, PBers yet again show their total disinterest in Scottish politics. Not a single comment. Not a peep. And the guy used to lead his flippin party.
Hes also the only other person I know to realise that Luis Suarez wasn't calling Patrick Evra the N word, as the word doesn't exist in Spanish.
To me UKIP represents the best hope of racial or religious harmony by accepting England's population as it is now, and saying no more mass immigration. As I have posted before, this Guardian poll shows that British people of all colours are opposed to the constant influx of foreign immigrants
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right
"Set to one side even (dare we say it?) this paper’s provocative headline 12 days ago, questioning how a long-dead Marxist, who wanted to smash all the traditions and institutions which make Britain British, could be said to love his country.
By any objective yardstick, don’t such crimes and controversies pale beside the accusation levelled against the Guardian on Tuesday by the new head of MI5?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2451557/Daily-Mail-Comment-The-Guardian-paper-helps-Britains-enemies.html#ixzz2hJ7Epsi5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
My grandmother reads the Mail. What would you say to her?
Yes, Marine Le Pen's Front National:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2013/10/09/01002-20131009ARTFIG00467-un-sondage-place-le-fn-en-tete-en-vue-des-europeennes.php
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2013/10/07/01002-20131007ARTFIG00643-la-poussee-du-fn-plonge-le-ps-en-plein-desarroi.php
Interestingly, the FN, although often described as a far-right party, is nothing of the sort. It favours nationalisation, protectionism, increases in employment protection and state intervention in industry. Driving in France over the weekend, I passed a series of FN posters: "Ni gauche, ni droite". UKIP hasn't as yet gone as far down the left-wing popularism route as the FN, but there have been some nods in that direction.
However, there is of course one massive difference: the electoral system. Here, all UKIP does is help Labour.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2013/10/from-adamafriyie-we-need-an-eu-referendum-in-2014.html
Someone Green-inclined might say the right decision would be to decarbonise faster, and move to more green energy whatever the cost to people and industry.
Someone else might say that we need cheaper and securer electricity, regardless of CO2 emissions.
Others may say screw the energy companies until they squeak, regardless of the problems that may occur in the future.
These are mutually exclusive, and all can be seen to have valid points.
The Labour guy is hopeless, a serial loser and a loose cannon - I'd be wary of backing him.
In Easterross's defence, he only said that it "should be an interesting opportunity for the Tory candidate at #GE2015". One can interpret "an interesting opportunity" in many different ways, for example, it could be an interesting opportunity for the Tories to come third? So, Tim is being a bit cheeky in accusing poor Easterross of more "Scottish Tory Surge" bloopers.
It is actually Martin Baxter who is predicting CON Gain in Fife NE:
Chance of winning:
Con 31.8%
SNP 27.6%
LD 27.4%
Lab 12.6%
UKIP 0.6%
"It was Mr Chote who first recognised the… er… cavalier attitudes of Labour’s Treasury team under the then chancellor, Gordon Brown – and, boy, were they furious when he went public on his findings. It was in March 1998 when Mr Chote, then a journalist with the Financial Times, wrote a profile of Mr Brown in Prospect magazine. It was well-balanced, well-informed – and devastating.
It spoke of Mr Brown being “cliquey and thin-skinned”; it said: “Brown’s reluctance to trust his ministerial colleagues has been mirrored by his reluctance to trust many of his own officials”; it talked of the small group of “Brownies” – including Ed Balls – taking decisions out of sight of officials and “jealously protecting the flow of information”; and it cited one adviser saying Mr Brown was “a mixture of arrogance and intellectual insecurity”.
You may think that all this is well documented, but back then, with Labour in power for less than a year, it was explosive stuff......"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10366968/Gordon-Browns-mud-slingers-eat-humble-pie.html
I think the answer is zero, and I think that none are planned before 2015 either - Edmund in Tokyo linked to an article that talked about this. So the argument about putting off new investment is a complete non-starter, because there already was no new investment.
A great victory for market economics and foreign ownership of nationally critical infrastructure.
EdM's compassion for the poor has always been underwhelming. When Brown doubled the rate of tax on the lowest paid by abolishing the 10p rate, this is what he said
"“When you make a big set of changes in the tax system, some people do lose out. That is a matter of regret. Of course it is. "
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2013/02/14/ed-miliband-on-the-10p-tax-rate-then-now
Mr. Dickson, that is significant news on Ming (we came so close to having an election with leaders called Gordon and Ming...) but he's been out of sight, mostly, since he stood down/was assassinated.
The reason that the SNP are more realistic challengers to the Lib Dems in Fife North East is purely down to practicalities: the SNP are total experts at the "ground war" stuff. We have the money, we have the expertise, we have the large, motivated membership numbers, we have the databases, and we have the solid base of electoral support. The Tories have only got one or two of those things. The poor old Lib Dems have perhaps one of them.
Mumsnet beakers?
Posh fops.
What's wrong with wiping it on the curtains?
Anyway, back to Ukip. Following the Euros, I suspect they'll launch operation Duffy, and really target the Labour voters.
Clearly all PBers have accepted that Scotland will vote for independence in 2014 and so what happens to current Scottish MPs is irrelevant to all of us.
Nick, I thiink to define UKIP support by what it is against is short sighted. You could use the same argument for any party; Labour is anti tax cuts and welfare cuts, Tories are anti trade unions, LibDems are anti tuition fees....
I would describe my reasons for being a UKIP supporter as pro British Independence, pro grammar schools, pro harsh sentencing for criminals, pro tight border controls etc
I will admit to anti EU!
I guess you are anti those things, or 'pro' their opposites... maybe it comes naturally to consider people 'anti' what you think rather than 'pro' what they think.
http://www.carringtonpower.co.uk/
The problem is that the market economic of new power stations is queered by the system of levies. If the companies do not think that the plants will be economic long-term, they won't get built.
It doesn't matter if they're owned by UK companies or foreign companies: if the bottom line isn't there, they won't invest. If it is, they will.
ISTR that RCS suggested he might write a small primer about the way the energy industry works. I think that such a document might be a brilliant aid for debate.
As for the government's aims:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/28/gas-fired-power-stations-uk
If Danny Alexander or similar type was standing I would vote tactically.
If Huppert appealed to me on a single issue as a Con voter to switch - I might vote tactically.
If Huppert wasn't praising the council on spending £600k of council tax payers money on painting big "20 mph" garish signs on our road which you can only traverse at 5mph max - I might vote tactically...
Life is never as simple as you tim.
If you'd asked 100 knowledgable political punters 5 years ago who the main figures on the No campaign would be they might have named Menzies Campbell, Charlie Kennedy, Gordon Brown, Alastair Darling, Jim Murphy or Wee Dougie Alexander. But I'd wager that not a soul would have named (lord help us) Anas Sarwar and Johann Lamont.
Donald Dewar, John Smith and Robin Cook must be spinning in their graves.
Quite right actually. Mind you Red's socialism could just he enough to scare a few off to the Lib Dems in some places having seen them with the Tories in power and perhaps think locally they'd be a better combo than risking Red and Balls?
Now, with Bercow as my MP - how do I vote tactically?