Mr. 1000, isn't agreeing a budget, er, quite important for a government?
well, the spd wants a €45bn increase in the budget, while the cdu/csu wants the increase capped at €15bn. given that so far, the spd gets what the spd wants, i'd guess they'll go for a number near the top of that range
Mr. 1000, isn't agreeing a budget, er, quite important for a government?
well, the spd wants a €45bn increase in the budget, while the cdu/csu wants the increase capped at €15bn. given that so far, the spd gets what the spd wants, i'd guess they'll go for a number near the top of that range
i have never seen an election loser (like the spd) manage to get quite so much out of a set of negotiations before...
Labour are starting to make anti-immigration noises too, and out-kippering Cameron. tim to vote LD at the next election?
An excellent week for UKIP. The Mail, Cameron and even Labour all pushing voters in their direction. The other parties pretending to be tough about immigration only serves to remind the xenophobes that the only really tough party is UKIP.
Funnily enough one of the main drivers of people to UKIP appears to be the moronic politicians and commentators claiming that anyone who has legitimate concerns about immigration is a xenophobe. Even for those who are not particularly concerned about immigration the labelling and its consequences makes us question the sanity of most of the culprits since it is so clearly counter-productive.
I am well aware that immigration is a salient issue for a lot of people. But they are concerned about people who are already here - "polish plumbers taking our jobs" etc etc. The blunt truth is that no politician can do anything at all about this unless we withdraw form the EU single market, which only UKIP would contemplate (and they can only contemplate it because everyone knows they will never have to put it into practice).
Population movement is now much easier due to a whole series of political, economic and logistical factors which are largely outside the control of politicians in the UK. All this tough talk about immigration serves only to draw attention to past political failures of both parties and voters who really think that we can (or should) pull up the drawbridge will inevitably be drawn to UKIP as a result.
Mr. 1000, isn't agreeing a budget, er, quite important for a government?
well, the spd wants a €45bn increase in the budget, while the cdu/csu wants the increase capped at €15bn. given that so far, the spd gets what the spd wants, i'd guess they'll go for a number near the top of that range
i have never seen an election loser (like the spd) manage to get quite so much out of a set of negotiations before...
Mr. 1000, isn't agreeing a budget, er, quite important for a government?
well, the spd wants a €45bn increase in the budget, while the cdu/csu wants the increase capped at €15bn. given that so far, the spd gets what the spd wants, i'd guess they'll go for a number near the top of that range
i have never seen an election loser (like the spd) manage to get quite so much out of a set of negotiations before...
Didn't you follow the UK 2010 general election ??
Titters ....
Yes, because the LibDems got so much.... like the errr... err....
Mr. 1000, isn't agreeing a budget, er, quite important for a government?
well, the spd wants a €45bn increase in the budget, while the cdu/csu wants the increase capped at €15bn. given that so far, the spd gets what the spd wants, i'd guess they'll go for a number near the top of that range
i have never seen an election loser (like the spd) manage to get quite so much out of a set of negotiations before...
Didn't you follow the UK 2010 general election ??
Titters ....
Yes, because the LibDems got so much.... like the errr... err....
Just a thought but .... Like being in national government, outside of the WWII coalition, for the first time in almost a century.
"Funnily enough one of the main drivers of people to UKIP appears to be the moronic politicians and commentators claiming that anyone who has legitimate concerns about immigration is a xenophobe. "
The opposite actually, UKIPs boost came when the Tories recruited Crosby and got their own supporters excited about immigration.
Salience of immigration rose from 28% to over 50% among Con voters between Dec and April, UKIP polling went from 7% to 15%
No Tim, and since you are one of those guilty of the moronic comments I am not surprised you don't like the analysis.
Given that a considerable amount of support for UKIP has come from non Tory sources your concentration on one particular bete noir for you appears to be a perfect example of Einstein's definition of insanity.
Its just a coincidence that the UKIP boost happened when the Tories ramped up immigration and banged on about Europe is it, like it's coincidence UKIP got a load of Tory activist bigots around the gay marriage vote. Funny how it all happened at the same time and not a couple of years before isn't it.
Todays YouGov shows 17% of 2010 Tories going to UKIP and 3% of 2010 Labour voters, ooh the left is so worried about the Kippers.
Have UKIP decided whether they are staying in the EEA yet by the way?
One of the big drivers which you conveniently ignore and which matches the timings far more accurately than your artificially constructed timelines was the Rotherham fostering scandal. That produced a sustained jump in UKIP polling well before Crosby got involved. More to the point the rise in UKIP polling was happening even long before that issue. It is a far more complex question than your very limited mono-directional brain appears to be able to cope with and your continual banging on about Crosby really only reveals what a limited grasp of the issue you have.
Labour are starting to make anti-immigration noises too, and out-kippering Cameron. tim to vote LD at the next election?
An excellent week for UKIP. The Mail, Cameron and even Labour all pushing voters in their direction. The other parties pretending to be tough about immigration only serves to remind the xenophobes that the only really tough party is UKIP.
Funnily enough one of the main drivers of people to UKIP appears to be the moronic politicians and commentators claiming that anyone who has legitimate concerns about immigration is a xenophobe. Even for those who are not particularly concerned about immigration the labelling and its consequences makes us question the sanity of most of the culprits since it is so clearly counter-productive.
I am well aware that immigration is a salient issue for a lot of people. But they are concerned about people who are already here - "polish plumbers taking our jobs" etc etc. The blunt truth is that no politician can do anything at all about this unless we withdraw form the EU single market, which only UKIP would contemplate (and they can only contemplate it because everyone knows they will never have to put it into practice).
Population movement is now much easier due to a whole series of political, economic and logistical factors which are largely outside the control of politicians in the UK. All this tough talk about immigration serves only to draw attention to past political failures of both parties and voters who really think that we can (or should) pull up the drawbridge will inevitably be drawn to UKIP as a result.
You have no idea whether people are concerned about those already here or those they expect to come because no one has asked that question. So all you have are your own opinions on the matter (which of course are as equally valid as anyone else's but don't make for an objective analysis of the opinions of the wider population).
Ian Birrell @ianbirrell 1m Where are the MPs prepared to say publicly what many say privately about this irrational bile against immigrants on all sides of politics?
Hiding away, like they do about decriminalisation of drugs I'd imagine.
Ian Birrell @ianbirrell 20m Very timely RT @BritInfluence See where UK citizens are living in other EU countries pic.twitter.com/Trt6oDGgUW
"Funnily enough one of the main drivers of people to UKIP appears to be the moronic politicians and commentators claiming that anyone who has legitimate concerns about immigration is a xenophobe. "
The opposite actually, UKIPs boost came when the Tories recruited Crosby and got their own supporters excited about immigration.
Salience of immigration rose from 28% to over 50% among Con voters between Dec and April, UKIP polling went from 7% to 15%
No Tim, and since you are one of those guilty of the moronic comments I am not surprised you don't like the analysis.
Given that a considerable amount of support for UKIP has come from non Tory sources your concentration on one particular bete noir for you appears to be a perfect example of Einstein's definition of insanity.
It's been perfectly acceptable to raise concerns over immigration for well over a decade (if not before), and pretty much every tabloid has been vehemently anti-immigration for all of that time. The Tories' 2005 campaign was effectively based on dog whistles around immigration.
Why UKIP have been getting a boost is that while all Westminster parties realise they need to talk about it - none can convince people that they'll actually do anything drastic enough about those concerns such that it matches people's annoyance.
- The Tories because they need to appease business, who are still on the whole pro-EU and pro-immigration, and certainly not anti to the extent of UKIP supporters.
-Lab for the same reasons, and because to go totally anti would tear the party apart and be totally intellectually incoherent.
-The LDs because one of the few reasons left to actually vote Lib Dem is if you're unashamedly pro-European and have a classically liberal attitude to immigration.
It's why the Tories talking about it helps UKIP- and not just in sending Tories into UKIP's arms but from NOTA, and to a lesser extent Lab, because if you're annoyed about immigration and want it to stop - toughening up the JSA rules isn't going to make you vote Tory but it does allow Farage to get on the telly/radio and comprehensively outbid Dave on the subject.
The two-partner firm Atkins Thomson had its budget limited to court fees alone after failing to submit a budget seven days before the first case management conference.
In effect, the ruling meant that even if the Conservative former chief whip wins his libel case, The Sun would not have to pay his legal fees.
The Scottish vote is not a big issue in England either way at present.
If there were to be a Yes vote though, that would change fairly quickly, partly because it is very likely to make the Conservatives much more of an English nationalist party already, partly because it will make a Conservative rUK government much more likely and partly because the financial settlement will affect English voters in their pockets.
Countries politically seperating rarely grow closer economic or social links afterwards; why would this one be different?
I think that the mindset of most English is that of the Walkaway Spouse.
Except you're not walking away.
Crappy, ill thought out divorce metaphor #207 in a long, long list.
It's not a divorce because it's not a marriage. How different is life going to feel to the average Englishman if Scotland becomes a foreign country? It isn't. In England this is a Westminster bubble question, a fact which shouldn't be obscured by the big pompous concepts involved. When and how high has it ever featured in Mike's beloved salience poll?
@AndrewCooper__: UKIP poll in S.Thanet is virtually meaningless. Absurdly small sample: party support % based on just 308 responses http://t.co/8EpKpG750D
PMQs - Ed will go for cost of living/energy again. It's proved to be a consistent winner and Dave still doesn't have an answer.
Perhaps someone will wake up, and remind Miliband of his time as Energy Secretary?
'Gas bills jumped more than 10 per cent when Ed Miliband was energy secretary, according to official figures.
Analysis for the Daily Mail by the Office for National Statistics shows household energy bills rose far faster under the last Labour government than under the Coalition.
Part of the increase was down to green policies adopted by Miliband, who at the time declared ‘there is no low-cost energy future’.'
First, let’s get a few things straight. The Co-op Bank is not the Co-op Group, and is not the Co-op Party, a separate political party which sponsors MPs, among other things. Problems for one does not necessarily mean disaster for all three.
And there are two further stories currently being bandied around, both fallacies. And a third story, which no-one seems to be telling, which is the truth.
Fallacy one: the Labour Party is tainted with the scandal of Paul Flowers. Tosh....
Fallacy two: the Labour Party will be broke because of the loss of donations from the Co-op. Wrong.
The third point is not a fallacy, sadly, but it is the one no-one seems to be focusing on.
It’s very simple: for many years, Labour has had a very useful and fruitful relationship with the Co-op Bank.
PMQs - Ed will go for cost of living/energy again. It's proved to be a consistent winner and Dave still doesn't have an answer.
Perhaps someone will wake up, and remind Miliband of his time as Energy Secretary?
'Gas bills jumped more than 10 per cent when Ed Miliband was energy secretary, according to official figures.
Analysis for the Daily Mail by the Office for National Statistics shows household energy bills rose far faster under the last Labour government than under the Coalition.
Part of the increase was down to green policies adopted by Miliband, who at the time declared ‘there is no low-cost energy future’.'
The two-partner firm Atkins Thomson had its budget limited to court fees alone after failing to submit a budget seven days before the first case management conference.
In effect, the ruling meant that even if the Conservative former chief whip wins his libel case, The Sun would not have to pay his legal fees.
Ouch for Andrew Mitchell, but in the wider context it's probably a good thing. For far too long lawyers (and indeed courts) have been very careless about cost control.
It's why the Tories talking about it helps UKIP- and not just in sending Tories into UKIP's arms but from NOTA, and to a lesser extent Lab, because if you're annoyed about immigration and want it to stop - toughening up the JSA rules isn't going to make you vote Tory but it does allow Farage to get on the telly/radio and comprehensively outbid Dave on the subject.
Precisely. UKIP will always be able to outbid the Tories on immigration or Europe, and at the moment the rightwing media seems intent on giving them a helping hand.
First, let’s get a few things straight. The Co-op Bank is not the Co-op Group, and is not the Co-op Party, a separate political party which sponsors MPs, among other things. Problems for one does not necessarily mean disaster for all three.
And there are two further stories currently being bandied around, both fallacies. And a third story, which no-one seems to be telling, which is the truth.
Fallacy one: the Labour Party is tainted with the scandal of Paul Flowers. Tosh....
Fallacy two: the Labour Party will be broke because of the loss of donations from the Co-op. Wrong.
The third point is not a fallacy, sadly, but it is the one no-one seems to be focusing on.
It’s very simple: for many years, Labour has had a very useful and fruitful relationship with the Co-op Bank.
but IOS told us the probs at the Co-op bank would have no effect on Labour whatsoever.
The two-partner firm Atkins Thomson had its budget limited to court fees alone after failing to submit a budget seven days before the first case management conference.
In effect, the ruling meant that even if the Conservative former chief whip wins his libel case, The Sun would not have to pay his legal fees.
Ouch for Andrew Mitchell, but in the wider context it's probably a good thing.
Yes - its always painful for the first when people wake up to 'oh, the rules really do apply then?' - but at least in such a high profile case it will not go unnoticed.....
I wonder if Mr Mitchell will continue in his action?
UKIP didn't all of a sudden get a boost from immigration. Richard is right (and tim is wrong, apologies for the tautology).
At the heart of UKIP is being out of Europe - something that all who flirt with or are committed to the party can rally around.
But what happened also over the past few years is that UKIP has also become the NOTA party, a place that LD occupied before they only went and got elected.
At the height of UKIP support (March/19% Lab lost 3% vs Cons losing 1%) the NOTA/will-someone-please-take-me-away-from-all-this/world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket thing was going all guns blazing.
Since that time, the please-sort-this-out mantle has been grabbed by Labour with their ineffective (in real life) and hugely effective (politically) energy freeze shenanigans.
Hence the subdued Cons polls and the seemingly solid 7-9% Lab lead.
I still believe that nationally to vote ukip is to get Labour. At the 2010 GE it was estimated that ukip cost the Tories 20 seats. ukip may gain HoC seats in the future but they will never completely re[place the Tories - too incoherent and hysterical. So guys, look forward to permanent socialism! Ironic really, the Tories will take the blame for fixing Labor's mess. Mervyn King was right.
Anyway, the Tories are in a bit of a troubled place at the moment. Struggling to set the agenda.
Being forced onto UKIP's territory on immigration, and on the other flank being forced onto Labour's territory on the Cost of Living.
Though the party that cut benefits, the deficit and got the economy growing again is a reasonable pitch for the election, they could probably do with upping their game before minds are already made up (if its not too late already).
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
UKIP didn't all of a sudden get a boost from immigration. Richard is right (and tim is wrong, apologies for the tautology).
At the heart of UKIP is being out of Europe - something that all who flirt with or are committed to the party can rally around.
But what happened also over the past few years is that UKIP has also become the NOTA party, a place that LD occupied before they only went and got elected.
Yes I agree - UKIP has certainly benefited by being the NOTA party and their rise cannot be ascribed entirely to immigration. However it is still true that the other parties banging on about immigration can only boost UKIP. IIRC yougov asked "best party on immigration" recently - "none of them" was 50%+ and of the rest UKIP were way ahead, Labour were second and the Tores third!
Anyway, the Tories are in a bit of a troubled place at the moment. Struggling to set the agenda.
Being forced onto UKIP's territory on immigration, and on the other flank being forced onto Labour's territory on the Cost of Living.
Though the party that cut benefits, the deficit and got the economy growing again is a reasonable pitch for the election, they could probably do with upping their game before minds are already made up (if its not too late already).
The shame of course is that they are not struggling to set the agenda. They are slowly returning the economy to growth in a low interest rate environment while trying (hi tim) not to stoke a speculative asset price bubble. They IMO are doing a good job - 7/10.
What they are struggling with and not winning is the soundbite war.
For Labour to pick one element of any hard-fought recovery (eg. Energy) and focus on that as though everything else will fall into place, when their macro-economic policies, if enacted, would be catastrophic, is a nuance not readily appreciated by newspaper headline-writers, most of the public, or most blogs (apart from this one).
Oooh that Rotherham fostering case is a killer, oooh Labour strategists must be quaking at the UKIP rise.
Read again what I said tim.
UKIP became the NOTA party while the Cons were applying some pretty painful-sounding medicine (I say "sounding" because you will no doubt remind me that the Cons are spending more than Lab).
Of course when people are under duress, worried about their finances, their family life and the future, they will swing towards NOTA or the "we'll make it all better by promising a load of old bollocks which we know we can't deliver" party.
It's human nature.
The key issue is will 2010 Lab=>LD=>Lab switchers re-switch back to LD.
I think they will. Plus the Kippers over 5% will melt back to their various homes.
Immigration, as @anothernick pointed out, is certainly a factor, but by no means the critical one.
A few weeks ago Mike posted a poll showing that a referendum on leaving europe was fairly evenly split, and there seems to have been a moveagainst BOO. I think this is because the various euro crises are less in the news than previously. Yet we have a rise in the UKIP poll at the same time. This would suggest to me that UKIPs rise is not driven by anti Euro feeling, but at least as much by other issues such as immigration and NOTA. I expect them to do well in the May Euros, but not win a seat at the general election. They make all the difference to the balance between Labour majority and minority govt though.
UKIP didn't all of a sudden get a boost from immigration. Richard is right (and tim is wrong, apologies for the tautology).
At the heart of UKIP is being out of Europe - something that all who flirt with or are committed to the party can rally around.
But what happened also over the past few years is that UKIP has also become the NOTA party, a place that LD occupied before they only went and got elected.
Yes I agree - UKIP has certainly benefited by being the NOTA party and their rise cannot be ascribed entirely to immigration. However it is still true that the other parties banging on about immigration can only boost UKIP. IIRC yougov asked "best party on immigration" recently - "none of them" was 50%+ and of the rest UKIP were way ahead, Labour were second and the Tores third!
Oooh that Rotherham fostering case is a killer, oooh Labour strategists must be quaking at the UKIP rise.
Read again what I said tim.
UKIP became the NOTA party while the Cons were applying some pretty painful-sounding medicine (I say "sounding" because you will no doubt remind me that the Cons are spending more than Lab).
Of course when people are under duress, worried about their finances, their family life and the future, they will swing towards NOTA or the "we'll make it all better by promising a load of old bollocks which we know we can't deliver" party.
It's human nature.
The key issue is will 2010 Lab=>LD=>Lab switchers re-switch back to LD.
I think they will. Plus the Kippers over 5% will melt back to their various homes.
Immigration, as @anothernick pointed out, is certainly a factor, but by no means the critical one.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
There are more people in employment in Britain than ever before. That's pretty good going, considering the epic recession we've been through in that period.
"Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.
Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics."
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
Really?
Given wages in London - for even the very unskilled - are still way above minimum wage either:
(a) unskilled labour is in relatively short supply or (b) employers are irrational
A few weeks ago Mike posted a poll showing that a referendum on leaving europe was fairly evenly split, and there seems to have been a moveagainst BOO. I think this is because the various euro crises are less in the news than previously. Yet we have a rise in the UKIP poll at the same time. This would suggest to me that UKIPs rise is not driven by anti Euro feeling, but at least as much by other issues such as immigration and NOTA.
Exactly so. I believe there is polling evidence that UKIP voters are not primarily motivated by European issues. FWIW I think the move against BOO is a product of the referendum appearing to be a more likely prospect - if people are actually faced with the choice they won't vote to leave. Same happened in 1975 - "no" was well ahead in the polls until the referendum became a reality, after which the position changed abruptly.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
I'm not sure whether the majority of Bulgarians and Romanians fall into the former or the latter group. Surely that's the issue...
Toby Young @toadmeister 23m @MSmithsonPB@DamianSurvation Why “much more damaging”? I think "much less" because very few Labour voters would be prepared to vote LD
It is the politician's reaction to completely distort our energy market on the back of something over which we will have very very little effect freezing pensioners to death so that green zealot fat-cats can get huge subsidies off of their Offshore wind businesses that is wrong !
Thanet is no bet for me, I missed the 3-1 and 4-1, the current prices look about right. Farage may not stand in Thanet South even though he is favourite there to do so. Or is the 9-4 too long ?
C) There are some people so unskilled that they are not worth employing even at minimum wage
D) The loss of benefits in London associated with employment means that minimum wage jobs get few suitable applicants
No doubt there are other possibilities, but the persistence of unemployment and Neets in London suggests that a pure labour shortage of unskilled workers is not the only issue.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
Really?
Given wages in London - for even the very unskilled - are still way above minimum wage either:
(a) unskilled labour is in relatively short supply or (b) employers are irrational
"Social media was helping facilitate the transfer of Britons to Syria, Mr Maher said. “When the English speakers tweet, the number of hits they get, from people in the UK, is huge, with many asking 'how can I get there?’... If someone has no contacts in the area, they can make contact with a jihadist in Syria via social media, and get the transfer process started”."
It be will be ironic if the US ends up bombing Britain because of its state-sponsored taliban.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
There are more people in employment in Britain than ever before. That's pretty good going, considering the epic recession we've been through in that period.
You mean the horrible immigrants are actually working and paying taxes ?
C) There are some people so unskilled that they are not worth employing even at minimum wage
D) The loss of benefits in London associated with employment means that minimum wage jobs get few suitable applicants
No doubt there are other possibilities, but the persistence of unemployment and Neets in London suggests that a pure labour shortage of unskilled workers is not the only issue.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
Really?
Given wages in London - for even the very unskilled - are still way above minimum wage either:
(a) unskilled labour is in relatively short supply or (b) employers are irrational
Your call.
You are absolutely correct. We have created a system that discourages work.
It's been perfectly acceptable to raise concerns over immigration for well over a decade (if not before), and pretty much every tabloid has been vehemently anti-immigration for all of that time. The Tories' 2005 campaign was effectively based on dog whistles around immigration.
Hardly. Which is why people like Tim can still get away with the lazy false label of xenophobes for those who want to limit immigration. There are plenty of intellectually valid reasons why people want a limit on the number of people coming into a country. Other countries have successful strict limits on immigration and settlement. But for much of the the Left in the UK it is one of those mental blocks they suffer from which prevents them ever being able to consider limits on immigration to be anything other than racist or xenophobic.
They have set the agenda on this for far too long - in part facilitated by the moronic far right and their apologists who have always predicted doomsday with us all being murdered in our beds and our women thrown into white slavery. Both sides have ensured that a reasonable debate on limits to immigration cannot be held on the basis of costs and benefits.
And as an aside Farage doesn't help this debate with his reference to millions of Eastern Europeans flooding the country.
@JamesDellingpole should get out more: "I honestly think the trolls who congregate below @spectator online may be the thickest and most loathsome on earth."
@AndrewCooper__: UKIP poll in S.Thanet is virtually meaningless. Absurdly small sample: party support % based on just 308 responses http://t.co/8EpKpG750D
Alan Bown is a retired businessman who operated a small chain of bookmakers in the Thanet area before selling out to Corals on retirement. He is a long time UKIP supporter and donor, infamous for a long running dispute with the Electoral Commission. The dispute arose over a large donation (in the hundreds of thousands) to UKIP when he was 'temporarily and inadvertently' not registered on the electoral roll. UKIP/Bown eventually won the battle by taking it all the way to the Supreme Court.
I suspect the main purpose of Bown's polling exercise is to close a commitment from Farage to stand in South Thanet at the 2015 General Election. It would be Farage's second go at the constituency. He stood in 2005 and got 5% of the vote losing to Stephen Ladyman of Labour.
As an MEP, South Thanet would be an ideal constituency for Farage to fight being within half an hour of the Ashford Eurostar terminal. His prospects would also be better this time around given UKIP's national growth and the fact that the party nearly swept the board in Thanet in the May local elections.
However the news that Laura Sandys, the incumbent Tory MP, has announced she is to stand down in 2015 won't strengthen Farage's chances. Sandys is a rare Tory Europhile and an ideal opponent for Farage. I expect her successor as a Tory candidate will be a strongly eurosceptic in an attempt to resist the UKIP threat. Incidentally, Sandys does not have a blood line to Sir Winston Churchill. She is the daughter of Duncan Sandys's second wife, not of Diana Churchill, his first.
The problem for Farage in chosing South Thanet is that his standing would turn the constituency into a three way marginal, with a strong UKIP performance most likely to let Labour back in. This is why Alan Bown's stated reasons for commissioning the polls - to explore UKIP's appeal to Labour voters and the behaviour of former Tory voters in response to an appealing UKIP candidate - should be considered in the context of his desire to get Farage to stand in his constituency.
As for the polling results, it should be noted that Thanet is a flat, silted up former island now solely covered by bungalows and cabbage fields. It is pensioner and self-employed painter decorator territory. The extreme positions struck in mid-term should be taken with a pinch of salt and are most unlikely to repeat at a general election. When the votes come to be cast they will be for the party perceived as being most likely to protect pension income and benefits and to deliver a healthy property renovation market.
Far all Bown's persistence, Farage is probably better looking elsewhere.
How about a poll on Labour's new immigration positioning?
Is it ....
(a) A genuine regret that they got it wrong last time, and a promise to listen more next time. (b) Temporary political posturing to ensure they don't lose too many votes.
I'd be interested in the views of our Labour readers.
It's been perfectly acceptable to raise concerns over immigration for well over a decade (if not before), and pretty much every tabloid has been vehemently anti-immigration for all of that time. The Tories' 2005 campaign was effectively based on dog whistles around immigration.
Hardly. Which is why people like Tim can still get away with the lazy false label of xenophobes for those who want to limit immigration. There are plenty of intellectually valid reasons why people want a limit on the number of people coming into a country. Other countries have successful strict limits on immigration and settlement. But for much of the the Left in the UK it is one of those mental blocks they suffer from which prevents them ever being able to consider limits on immigration to be anything other than racist or xenophobic.
They have set the agenda on this for far too long - in part facilitated by the moronic far right and their apologists who have always predicted doomsday with us all being murdered in our beds and our women thrown into white slavery. Both sides have ensured that a reasonable debate on limits to immigration cannot be held on the basis of costs and benefits.
And as an aside Farage doesn't help this debate with his reference to millions of Eastern Europeans flooding the country.
I think that's a little simplistic. (Let's ignore the tiny minority of people like me who believe that that freedom of labour is a fundamental human right, and that states should have no ability to prohibit people from entering or leaving.)
While the left has been culturally in favour of immigration, the paymasters of the right have demanded looser immigration controls too. If you are running a multi-national like Shell, getting the right people (like yourself) in the right places is important. Restrictions on moving people around - even when they just require the filling in of forms - is a pain for big business. And for this reason, the Conservative Party is always under pressure from its biggest donors not to close the door either.
I think few care deeply whether Scotland leaves or stays in the Union (and no doubt many Scots are in the same camp). What Most want is for the moaning to stop, and if that requires a divorce then so be it.
I think that's basically it. I was very pro-union once but now i just want them to go away so i don't have to listen to it any more.
Indeed, Mr. Tyndall. The desire of Labour to rack up immigration and then play the race card was as despicable as it was stupid.
All those white Eastern Europeans moving here just makes the race plot more dastardly
You are right to pickup on that, but how many times have people that are anti EU immigration been called racist in discussions of this nature?
I Linked to a story in my local paper about Romanian robbers living in the woods in Romford, and Roger said. It was the most racist thing he has ever seen on here!
It's been perfectly acceptable to raise concerns over immigration for well over a decade (if not before), and pretty much every tabloid has been vehemently anti-immigration for all of that time. The Tories' 2005 campaign was effectively based on dog whistles around immigration.
Hardly. Which is why people like Tim can still get away with the lazy false label of xenophobes for those who want to limit immigration. There are plenty of intellectually valid reasons why people want a limit on the number of people coming into a country. Other countries have successful strict limits on immigration and settlement. But for much of the the Left in the UK it is one of those mental blocks they suffer from which prevents them ever being able to consider limits on immigration to be anything other than racist or xenophobic.
They have set the agenda on this for far too long - in part facilitated by the moronic far right and their apologists who have always predicted doomsday with us all being murdered in our beds and our women thrown into white slavery. Both sides have ensured that a reasonable debate on limits to immigration cannot be held on the basis of costs and benefits.
And as an aside Farage doesn't help this debate with his reference to millions of Eastern Europeans flooding the country.
Here we go, the libertarian in favour of goods and services moving but who wants the state to tell employers who they can employ.
Here we go, the left wing spammer pretending to understand political issues who fails to understand some of the most basic principles of Libertarianism. I did try to explain it to you once before Tim but apparently you were too thick to understand it. The policy of both the Libertarian Alliance and the Libertarian Party is for controlled borders and limits on immigration.
Some Libertarian movements such as that in Germany are very extreme in this basing their ideas on the principles of extreme 'Propertarianism'. Something I cannot agree with.
But the basic idea that Libertarians must be in favour of open borders is just nonsense.
If UKIP can win a few (say 5) seats in the General Election, Farage will kick himself if he's not one of them. His danger is that a couple of MPs get elected and he isn't one of them, especially if those elected are not competent media performers. If he can lead a party of say 5 MPs then he will have a good base. His other danger would be if he were the only UKIP MP elected. Could he realistically keep his seat in Europe too? (assuming he is re-elected) Dare he give it up? I can see why he is delaying his decision on where to stand. I think that to be party leader of a party with just a few MPs will be much for difficult than doing it from a European seat. I know South Thanet quite well and thought I understood some of the politics there but since the local elections last May things have been very difficult to read.
But for much of the the Left in the UK it is one of those mental blocks they suffer from which prevents them ever being able to consider limits on immigration to be anything other than racist or xenophobic.
The ironic thing is that, belatedly, right at the end their 13 years in government, Labour actually DID introduce some sensible limits (via the points system) on non-EU immigration. They now alternate between air-brushing that out of history so they can blame the Tories for being 'xenophobic', and pretending that they were firmer on immigration than the Tories, but no-one believes them.
C) There are some people so unskilled that they are not worth employing even at minimum wage
D) The loss of benefits in London associated with employment means that minimum wage jobs get few suitable applicants
No doubt there are other possibilities, but the persistence of unemployment and Neets in London suggests that a pure labour shortage of unskilled workers is not the only issue.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
Really?
Given wages in London - for even the very unskilled - are still way above minimum wage either:
(a) unskilled labour is in relatively short supply or (b) employers are irrational
Your call.
You are absolutely correct. We have created a system that discourages work.
And then we blame immigrants for working.
No, we don't blame immigrants for working, that's where people get it wrong.
Immigrants are blameless, they are doing what anyone would do if they had the chance to earn 5 or 6 times more money by moving to another country.
the blame lies with the government for allowing experienced manual workers with families to feed from abroad to compete with inexperienced British teenagers for the same jobs
If it were attractive for British workers to move to Eastern Europe then there would be no problem , but it isn't, and that's why freedom of movement should be allowed only on a swap basis , ie 1 million British Pensioners in Spain means 1 million Spaniards can work in. Britain etc
No, we don't blame immigrants for working, that's where people get it wrong.
Immigrants are blameless, they are doing what anyone would do if they had the chance to earn 5 or 6 times more money by moving to another country.
the blame lies with the government for allowing experienced manual workers with families to feed from abroad to compete with inexperienced British teenagers for the same jobs
If it were attractive for British workers to move to Eastern Europe then there would be no problem , but it isn't, and that's why freedom of movement should be allowed only on a swap basis , ie 1 million British Pensioners in Spain means 1 million Spaniards can work in. Britain etc
Yes. What we need is government controls.
Lots more government. Let the government decide. What we need is more bureaucracy.
People shouldn't be free to chose who they work for or where they work. Companies should be sent list of people they are allowed to employ.
I think that the mindset of most English is that of the Walkaway Spouse.
Except you're not walking away.
Crappy, ill thought out divorce metaphor #207 in a long, long list.
It's not a divorce because it's not a marriage. How different is life going to feel to the average Englishman if Scotland becomes a foreign country? It isn't. In England this is a Westminster bubble question, a fact which shouldn't be obscured by the big pompous concepts involved. When and how high has it ever featured in Mike's beloved salience poll?
It is all bollocks ,. only difference it will make to Scotland is decisions will be made in Scotland and not Westminster, it cannot be worse than it is today. People on here can witter away with their delusions about the great UK, after the deed is done they will fall in line and take the best option , which the SNP know well and published yesterday.
No rebalancing evident at all in this morning's 2nd Q3 GDP release.
Dire net trade and investment figures. British consumer doing the heavy lifting as usual. That is not sustainable.
30 years of idiot Thatcherite economics has bombed the UK economy out.
Why don't you read the bulletins, Ben?
Note this quote from the headlines to this morning's GDP and the Labour Market release:
The services industries continued to act as the main driver of growth in Q3 2013, increasing by 0.7% and contributing 0.6 percentage points to GDP growth. However, growth was widespread, with the production and construction industries also experiencing positive growth in the latest quarter.
To claim the current economic growth is being solely driven by household consumption is disingenuous. With strong growth in employment and earnings a rise in consumption is hardly surprising:
...in the third quarter of 2013[, t]he rate of employment increased for the sixth consecutive quarter, reaching 71.8% and up from 71.2% in Q3 2012. Over the same quarter, total weekly hours increased for the ninth successive quarter to reach 962.7 million hours while the unemployment rate fell by 0.2 percentage points to 7.6%.
...
Other key categories of income also show positive contributions to GDP. Gross operating surplus grew by 5.2%; other incomes increased by 0.7%; and taxes less subsidies saw an increase of 2.7% over the quarter.
Gross capital formation (investment) also contributed to growth. Yes, the trade figures were disappointing, but this is not sufficient reason to conclude that there has been no beneficial economic rebalancing.
Mr. 1000, by that logic there should be no immigration control outside the EU as well.
Yes, that's correct. I don't believe there should be any restrictions on immigration whatsoever. My political views can be best summarised by the opening passage of AJP Taylor's The Effects and Origins of the Great War. (See: http://www.heretical.com/British/mhistory.html). However, I accept that this is a minority view, and I respect the views of Richard Tyndall, isam, and others who disagree with me.
No, we don't blame immigrants for working, that's where people get it wrong.
Immigrants are blameless, they are doing what anyone would do if they had the chance to earn 5 or 6 times more money by moving to another country.
the blame lies with the government for allowing experienced manual workers with families to feed from abroad to compete with inexperienced British teenagers for the same jobs
If it were attractive for British workers to move to Eastern Europe then there would be no problem , but it isn't, and that's why freedom of movement should be allowed only on a swap basis , ie 1 million British Pensioners in Spain means 1 million Spaniards can work in. Britain etc
Yes. What we need is government controls.
Lots more government. Let the government decide. What we need is more bureaucracy.
People shouldn't be free to chose who they work for or where they work. Companies should be sent list of people they are allowed to employ.
Well said. I may not agree with it (immigration hardly affects me anyway) but honesty is refreshing.
When Cameron and Labour both try to out-kipper the Kippers, no one really believes them. They're just politicians who lie for a living, and that feeds into NOTA - which helps Ukip.
It's been perfectly acceptable to raise concerns over immigration for well over a decade (if not before), and pretty much every tabloid has been vehemently anti-immigration for all of that time. The Tories' 2005 campaign was effectively based on dog whistles around immigration.
Hardly. Which is why people like Tim can still get away with the lazy false label of xenophobes for those who want to limit immigration. There are plenty of intellectually valid reasons why people want a limit on the number of people coming into a country. Other countries have successful strict limits on immigration and settlement. But for much of the the Left in the UK it is one of those mental blocks they suffer from which prevents them ever being able to consider limits on immigration to be anything other than racist or xenophobic.
They have set the agenda on this for far too long - in part facilitated by the moronic far right and their apologists who have always predicted doomsday with us all being murdered in our beds and our women thrown into white slavery. Both sides have ensured that a reasonable debate on limits to immigration cannot be held on the basis of costs and benefits.
And as an aside Farage doesn't help this debate with his reference to millions of Eastern Europeans flooding the country.
Here we go, the libertarian in favour of goods and services moving but who wants the state to tell employers who they can employ.
Here we go, the left wing spammer pretending to understand political issues who fails to understand some of the most basic principles of Libertarianism. I did try to explain it to you once before Tim but apparently you were too thick to understand it. The policy of both the Libertarian Alliance and the Libertarian Party is for controlled borders and limits on immigration.
Some Libertarian movements such as that in Germany are very extreme in this basing their ideas on the principles of extreme 'Propertarianism'. Something I cannot agree with.
But the basic idea that Libertarians must be in favour of open borders is just nonsense.
I recall Milton Friedman took the view that the free movement of people was incompatible with the existence of Western welfare states.
Most people would IMO be happy with something like 10 to 20,000 immigrants a year, provided they were highly skilled and were applying for jobs with shortages. So I don't think it's right to describe most people as being completely anti-immigration.
The negative effects of mass immigration were camouflaged by the biggest credit bubble in history (1998-2008). Now and increasingly they're not camouflaged.
. The policy of both the Libertarian Alliance and the Libertarian Party is for controlled borders and limits on immigration.
That's not "Libertarian" then is it? It is reactionary conservative.
Nope, again like Tim you fail utterly to understand the basic principles of Libertarianism (which is not, needless to say, anarchism).
Once you have actually learnt something about Libertarianism come on back and have an informed debate.Until then all you have to offer are meaningless comments.
Mr. 1000, by that logic there should be no immigration control outside the EU as well.
Yes, that's correct. I don't believe there should be any restrictions on immigration whatsoever. My political views can be best summarised by the opening passage of AJP Taylor's The Effects and Origins of the Great War. (See: http://www.heretical.com/British/mhistory.html). However, I accept that this is a minority view, and I respect the views of Richard Tyndall, isam, and others who disagree with me.
Based on what? Based on the principle that restricting people's right to immigrate anywhere they like is an injury against them? If the principle is injury then why doesn't it apply equally to the people in the receiving country?
Most people would IMO be happy with something like 10 to 20,000 immigrants a year, provided they were highly skilled and were applying for jobs with shortages. So I don't think it's right to describe most people as being completely anti-immigration.
Personally I have no great problem how large immigration is as long as it is matched by emigration or death. The problem for me is purely one of numbers. I can see no single country in the world where I would have an issue with migration from (so long as the individual migrants met basic security requirements) as long as we have a net migration/population growth of effectively zero.
The negative effects of mass immigration were camouflaged by the biggest credit bubble in history (1998-2008). Now and increasingly they're not camouflaged.
At a time when the economy is growing securely, it's nuts to be limiting or deterring the immigration of highly motivated intelligent people. They can help create the jobs that the less skilled workers need.
So why hasn't it happened then ? We've had full on immigration for over a decade and during that time less skilled workers haven't been in short supply.
Really?
Given wages in London - for even the very unskilled - are still way above minimum wage either:
(a) unskilled labour is in relatively short supply or (b) employers are irrational
Your call.
1. Since when was the minimum wage the market rate and not a floor on the market rate?
2. How many unskilled workers are working illegally for well below the minimum wage, living six to a room and sending almost all their wages home?
The negative effects of mass immigration were camouflaged by the biggest credit bubble in history (1998-2008). Now and increasingly they're not camouflaged.
It's not like me to ever enjoy anything that comes out of Dave's mouth but I quite liked the 'Engels' gag. It wasn't much of a hit though as it was fairly good natured and rather played into the idea that calling Ed a Marxist is more a joke than anything serious.
Key exchange the 'intellectual incoherence' one, so 1-0 Ed, although due to the toned down nature of PMQs, like Dave's rather toned down jabs at the Co-op it didn't draw huge amounts of blood.
Comments
Population movement is now much easier due to a whole series of political, economic and logistical factors which are largely outside the control of politicians in the UK. All this tough talk about immigration serves only to draw attention to past political failures of both parties and voters who really think that we can (or should) pull up the drawbridge will inevitably be drawn to UKIP as a result.
Titters ....
It's been perfectly acceptable to raise concerns over immigration for well over a decade (if not before), and pretty much every tabloid has been vehemently anti-immigration for all of that time. The Tories' 2005 campaign was effectively based on dog whistles around immigration.
Why UKIP have been getting a boost is that while all Westminster parties realise they need to talk about it - none can convince people that they'll actually do anything drastic enough about those concerns such that it matches people's annoyance.
- The Tories because they need to appease business, who are still on the whole pro-EU and pro-immigration, and certainly not anti to the extent of UKIP supporters.
-Lab for the same reasons, and because to go totally anti would tear the party apart and be totally intellectually incoherent.
-The LDs because one of the few reasons left to actually vote Lib Dem is if you're unashamedly pro-European and have a classically liberal attitude to immigration.
It's why the Tories talking about it helps UKIP- and not just in sending Tories into UKIP's arms but from NOTA, and to a lesser extent Lab, because if you're annoyed about immigration and want it to stop - toughening up the JSA rules isn't going to make you vote Tory but it does allow Farage to get on the telly/radio and comprehensively outbid Dave on the subject.
Looks like a clever financial move, but will Ed Miliband care to comment on the ethics. Predator or producer.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2513931/Tax-questions-Co-op-bank-boss-John-Baines.html
Am wondering if it will emerge at PMQs.
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/court-of-appeal-upholds-strict-costs-rule-in-mitchell-case/5038958.article
The two-partner firm Atkins Thomson had its budget limited to court fees alone after failing to submit a budget seven days before the first case management conference.
In effect, the ruling meant that even if the Conservative former chief whip wins his libel case, The Sun would not have to pay his legal fees.
If there were to be a Yes vote though, that would change fairly quickly, partly because it is very likely to make the Conservatives much more of an English nationalist party already, partly because it will make a Conservative rUK government much more likely and partly because the financial settlement will affect English voters in their pockets.
Countries politically seperating rarely grow closer economic or social links afterwards; why would this one be different?
'Gas bills jumped more than 10 per cent when Ed Miliband was energy secretary, according to official figures.
Analysis for the Daily Mail by the Office for National Statistics shows household energy bills rose far faster under the last Labour government than under the Coalition.
Part of the increase was down to green policies adopted by Miliband, who at the time declared ‘there is no low-cost energy future’.'
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2435661/Going-green-meant-gas-bills-rose-10-Ed-Miliband.html
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/11/27/the-real-reason-why-the-co-op-saga-is-bad-news-for-labour/#more-17526
First, let’s get a few things straight. The Co-op Bank is not the Co-op Group, and is not the Co-op Party, a separate political party which sponsors MPs, among other things. Problems for one does not necessarily mean disaster for all three.
And there are two further stories currently being bandied around, both fallacies. And a third story, which no-one seems to be telling, which is the truth.
Fallacy one: the Labour Party is tainted with the scandal of Paul Flowers. Tosh....
Fallacy two: the Labour Party will be broke because of the loss of donations from the Co-op. Wrong.
The third point is not a fallacy, sadly, but it is the one no-one seems to be focusing on.
It’s very simple: for many years, Labour has had a very useful and fruitful relationship with the Co-op Bank.
1) The economy.
2) An apology to Mitchell.
Not very impressive of Atkins Thomson, though.
I wonder if Mr Mitchell will continue in his action?
At the heart of UKIP is being out of Europe - something that all who flirt with or are committed to the party can rally around.
But what happened also over the past few years is that UKIP has also become the NOTA party, a place that LD occupied before they only went and got elected.
At the height of UKIP support (March/19% Lab lost 3% vs Cons losing 1%) the NOTA/will-someone-please-take-me-away-from-all-this/world's-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket thing was going all guns blazing.
Since that time, the please-sort-this-out mantle has been grabbed by Labour with their ineffective (in real life) and hugely effective (politically) energy freeze shenanigans.
Hence the subdued Cons polls and the seemingly solid 7-9% Lab lead.
?
Could you clarify what you mean by that?
Being forced onto UKIP's territory on immigration, and on the other flank being forced onto Labour's territory on the Cost of Living.
Though the party that cut benefits, the deficit and got the economy growing again is a reasonable pitch for the election, they could probably do with upping their game before minds are already made up (if its not too late already).
What they are struggling with and not winning is the soundbite war.
For Labour to pick one element of any hard-fought recovery (eg. Energy) and focus on that as though everything else will fall into place, when their macro-economic policies, if enacted, would be catastrophic, is a nuance not readily appreciated by newspaper headline-writers, most of the public, or most blogs (apart from this one).
Gibraltar bag UQ up first at 1230 so Yvette Cooper UQ due 1pm ish
UKIP became the NOTA party while the Cons were applying some pretty painful-sounding medicine (I say "sounding" because you will no doubt remind me that the Cons are spending more than Lab).
Of course when people are under duress, worried about their finances, their family life and the future, they will swing towards NOTA or the "we'll make it all better by promising a load of old bollocks which we know we can't deliver" party.
It's human nature.
The key issue is will 2010 Lab=>LD=>Lab switchers re-switch back to LD.
I think they will. Plus the Kippers over 5% will melt back to their various homes.
Immigration, as @anothernick pointed out, is certainly a factor, but by no means the critical one.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/salmond-in-call-to-dump-millstone-of-the-pound-1.263204
"Alex Salmond delivered a whole-hearted defence of the euro yesterday and predicted that Scotland would successfully flourish if the country cut its ties with sterling and embraced the European single currency.
Speaking to an audience at one of Brussels' most influential think tanks - the Centre for European Policy Studies - the SNP leader described the pound as ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and challenged the euro's supporters to launch a more aggressive debate against the new currency's critics."
Given wages in London - for even the very unskilled - are still way above minimum wage either:
(a) unskilled labour is in relatively short supply
or
(b) employers are irrational
Your call.
It is the politician's reaction to completely distort our energy market on the back of something over which we will have very very little effect freezing pensioners to death so that green zealot fat-cats can get huge subsidies off of their Offshore wind businesses that is wrong !
D) The loss of benefits in London associated with employment means that minimum wage jobs get few suitable applicants
No doubt there are other possibilities, but the persistence of unemployment and Neets in London suggests that a pure labour shortage of unskilled workers is not the only issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10476333/What-every-jihadi-in-Syria-needs-hair-gel-an-iPad-and-Kit-Kats.html
"Social media was helping facilitate the transfer of Britons to Syria, Mr Maher said. “When the English speakers tweet, the number of hits they get, from people in the UK, is huge, with many asking 'how can I get there?’... If someone has no contacts in the area, they can make contact with a jihadist in Syria via social media, and get the transfer process started”."
It be will be ironic if the US ends up bombing Britain because of its state-sponsored taliban.
And then we blame immigrants for working.
They have set the agenda on this for far too long - in part facilitated by the moronic far right and their apologists who have always predicted doomsday with us all being murdered in our beds and our women thrown into white slavery. Both sides have ensured that a reasonable debate on limits to immigration cannot be held on the basis of costs and benefits.
And as an aside Farage doesn't help this debate with his reference to millions of Eastern Europeans flooding the country.
I suspect the main purpose of Bown's polling exercise is to close a commitment from Farage to stand in South Thanet at the 2015 General Election. It would be Farage's second go at the constituency. He stood in 2005 and got 5% of the vote losing to Stephen Ladyman of Labour.
As an MEP, South Thanet would be an ideal constituency for Farage to fight being within half an hour of the Ashford Eurostar terminal. His prospects would also be better this time around given UKIP's national growth and the fact that the party nearly swept the board in Thanet in the May local elections.
However the news that Laura Sandys, the incumbent Tory MP, has announced she is to stand down in 2015 won't strengthen Farage's chances. Sandys is a rare Tory Europhile and an ideal opponent for Farage. I expect her successor as a Tory candidate will be a strongly eurosceptic in an attempt to resist the UKIP threat. Incidentally, Sandys does not have a blood line to Sir Winston Churchill. She is the daughter of Duncan Sandys's second wife, not of Diana Churchill, his first.
[to be continued]
The problem for Farage in chosing South Thanet is that his standing would turn the constituency into a three way marginal, with a strong UKIP performance most likely to let Labour back in. This is why Alan Bown's stated reasons for commissioning the polls - to explore UKIP's appeal to Labour voters and the behaviour of former Tory voters in response to an appealing UKIP candidate - should be considered in the context of his desire to get Farage to stand in his constituency.
As for the polling results, it should be noted that Thanet is a flat, silted up former island now solely covered by bungalows and cabbage fields. It is pensioner and self-employed painter decorator territory. The extreme positions struck in mid-term should be taken with a pinch of salt and are most unlikely to repeat at a general election. When the votes come to be cast they will be for the party perceived as being most likely to protect pension income and benefits and to deliver a healthy property renovation market.
Far all Bown's persistence, Farage is probably better looking elsewhere.
How about a poll on Labour's new immigration positioning?
Is it ....
(a) A genuine regret that they got it wrong last time, and a promise to listen more next time.
(b) Temporary political posturing to ensure they don't lose too many votes.
I'd be interested in the views of our Labour readers.
And yes, I know they all do it.
Dire net trade and investment figures. British consumer doing the heavy lifting as usual. That is not sustainable.
30 years of idiot Thatcherite economics has bombed the UK economy out.
While the left has been culturally in favour of immigration, the paymasters of the right have demanded looser immigration controls too. If you are running a multi-national like Shell, getting the right people (like yourself) in the right places is important. Restrictions on moving people around - even when they just require the filling in of forms - is a pain for big business. And for this reason, the Conservative Party is always under pressure from its biggest donors not to close the door either.
You are right to pickup on that, but how many times have people that are anti EU immigration been called racist in discussions of this nature?
I Linked to a story in my local paper about Romanian robbers living in the woods in Romford, and Roger said. It was the most racist thing he has ever seen on here!
Some Libertarian movements such as that in Germany are very extreme in this basing their ideas on the principles of extreme 'Propertarianism'. Something I cannot agree with.
But the basic idea that Libertarians must be in favour of open borders is just nonsense.
His other danger would be if he were the only UKIP MP elected. Could he realistically keep his seat in Europe too? (assuming he is re-elected) Dare he give it up?
I can see why he is delaying his decision on where to stand. I think that to be party leader of a party with just a few MPs will be much for difficult than doing it from a European seat.
I know South Thanet quite well and thought I understood some of the politics there but since the local elections last May things have been very difficult to read.
No, we don't blame immigrants for working, that's where people get it wrong.
Immigrants are blameless, they are doing what anyone would do if they had the chance to earn 5 or 6 times more money by moving to another country.
the blame lies with the government for allowing experienced manual workers with families to feed from abroad to compete with inexperienced British teenagers for the same jobs
If it were attractive for British workers to move to Eastern Europe then there would be no problem , but it isn't, and that's why freedom of movement should be allowed only on a swap basis , ie 1 million British Pensioners in Spain means 1 million Spaniards can work in. Britain etc
Lots more government. Let the government decide. What we need is more bureaucracy.
People shouldn't be free to chose who they work for or where they work. Companies should be sent list of people they are allowed to employ.
People on here can witter away with their delusions about the great UK, after the deed is done they will fall in line and take the best option , which the SNP know well and published yesterday.
Note this quote from the headlines to this morning's GDP and the Labour Market release:
The services industries continued to act as the main driver of growth in Q3 2013, increasing by 0.7% and contributing 0.6 percentage points to GDP growth. However, growth was widespread, with the production and construction industries also experiencing positive growth in the latest quarter.
To claim the current economic growth is being solely driven by household consumption is disingenuous. With strong growth in employment and earnings a rise in consumption is hardly surprising:
...in the third quarter of 2013[, t]he rate of employment increased for the sixth consecutive quarter, reaching 71.8% and up from 71.2% in Q3 2012. Over the same quarter, total weekly hours increased for the ninth successive quarter to reach 962.7 million hours while the unemployment rate fell by 0.2 percentage points to 7.6%.
...
Other key categories of income also show positive contributions to GDP. Gross operating surplus grew by 5.2%; other incomes increased by 0.7%; and taxes less subsidies saw an increase of 2.7% over the quarter.
Gross capital formation (investment) also contributed to growth. Yes, the trade figures were disappointing, but this is not sufficient reason to conclude that there has been no beneficial economic rebalancing.
We should be able to govern our own country yes
More like Mengele than Engels.
rcs1000.
Well said. I may not agree with it (immigration hardly affects me anyway) but honesty is refreshing.
When Cameron and Labour both try to out-kipper the Kippers, no one really believes them. They're just politicians who lie for a living, and that feeds into NOTA - which helps Ukip.
Luciana Berger was at it yesterday ... groan.
Not on top of the subject was he ??
Once you have actually learnt something about Libertarianism come on back and have an informed debate.Until then all you have to offer are meaningless comments.
very boring, by numbers.
Do we still have enough aircraft carriers?
2. How many unskilled workers are working illegally for well below the minimum wage, living six to a room and sending almost all their wages home?
Key exchange the 'intellectual incoherence' one, so 1-0 Ed, although due to the toned down nature of PMQs, like Dave's rather toned down jabs at the Co-op it didn't draw huge amounts of blood.