I agree, but the upside for Ed isn't very much, if any. Also the LibDems, despite having had a referendum in their manifesto last time, almost definitely don't really want one, so staying clear of a commitment will help put Ed in Downing Street in the event that the result is an almost exact tie and the LibDems get to chose.
As Harry Hayfield regularly links to them in his local by-election pieces, perhaps he or any other by-election afficionado can inform us of the status of these services.
My twopenneth, which inflated to fourpence as I got going....
I think 'either power or influence' is a false premise. They amount to the same thing and UKIP supporters want both.
It's easy to see why 2015 will be better for the kippers than 2010:
The average age of voters will be higher and so therefore will be a desire for 'traditional' values.
The number of people who are policy-blind-party-voters will be fewer as the pace of change picks up and people get better at switching.
The Euros will get people used to ticking the UKIP box. 2014 is great timing for getting some practice in. I fully expect the BBC (the UK's chief influencer of opinion) to neglect its 'educate' remit at these elections and not tell anyone how the EU actually works. But then more people are learning via the net and papers, and making the EU look attractive is increasing difficult for them.
The shot-UKIP-fox-referendum line the Tories are promoting is duff. If you want a referendum, let's have one now. And besides Cam, Mil and Clegg will all be stay-iners. When most voters will be outers and therefore on Farage's side.
UKIP will be the 'plague on all you houses' vote. Not the LDs. And UKIP voters aren't going to 'vote tactically' to keep Con in or Lab out. Voting UKIP is their tactical vote. And they're going to vote UKIP no matter what. The tactic is to send a message, and if that brings seats so much the better.
The number of people in the UK who are directly experiencing immigration and multiculturalism will be greater as metropolitan immigrants (more obvious ones ie nonwhite, religious types) continue to ripple out through the suburbs and into the counties. Positives, but mainly negatives and on balance this will increase support for UKIP. Allied to this, Labour's 'you are a racist if you are not celebrating diversity' shtick is losing its effect and is less of hindrance to voting for UKIP.
UKIP have demonstrated excellent bullet-proof, Teflon qualities. Bloom, NF lady, Nazification of Farage . All water off a duck's back. So getting side-swiped is less of a concern.
Of course, anything could happen and no doubt the establishment will try to make sure it does. But Farage is right to talk about the possibility of earthquakes during the Euros and beyond.
David Herdson - " In the last 200 years, the only parties that can claim to have made that leap are Labour, which was greatly assisted by the enlargement of the franchise and the Liberals’ constant splitting, and the SNP in Scotland."
David, you provide an explanation (presumably not the only explanation) for the successful establishment of the Labour Party, however, you fail to even attempt to provide an explanation for the successful establishment of the Scottish National Party.
I could present my own thoughts, but I wonder if you would care to present your own theory as to why the SNP, highly unusually, made "the leap" as you call it.
You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
"using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
The Left doesn't like the idea that they could lose traditional votes, since these have always been the bedrock of their support. Maybe it's the recession but atm with WWC comminuities taking much of the grief anyone who's not a Tory has got a pile of disaffected votes potentially available in traditional Labour heartlands.
Yup, slower to switch but potentially loads (although i'd say the Cameroons could have got half of them a few years ago but they decided to poke them in the eye instead).
Below, you said: "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
As Harry Hayfield regularly links to them in his local by-election pieces, perhaps he or any other by-election afficionado can inform us of the status of these services.
They're run by Kris Keane of VoteUK. He's usually online there.
we've seen what coalition negotiations do to manifesto commitments, I'm sure ruthless Ed will be up to it.
Actually there does seem to be quite an upside for Ed to make the promise, however shallow his intent. What does it do to Dave's USP "you can only get a referendum with me"?
we've seen what coalition negotiations do to manifesto commitments, I'm sure ruthless Ed will be up to it.
Actually there does seem to be quite an upside for Ed to make the promise, however shallow his intent. What does it do to Dave's USP "you can only get a referendum with me"?
Nothing good for Dave i'm sure.
Is that Dave's USP? It doesn't seem like much of a selling point - rightly or wrongly the people who want a referendum don't seem to believe he'd deliver it.
Another good David H leader. I don't agree that the site is declining in quality, even if some threads are hijacked by personal sniping. It remains possibly the best cross-party read in politics.
Not convinced 2015 is UKIP's best/only chance. It is, I think , its best chance of establishing itself as a viable option. If they get say 10% nationally and 25-30% in some seats (which seems a reasonable guess), they will be well placed to make further progress as the next government, of whatever flavour, will not find things easy.
The existential question of "why are we here, government or influence?" isn't really one which people in smaller parties worry about too much - otherwise the LibDems would have vanished years ago. People support smaller parties because they like their message, or want to cock a snook at all the others.
On Europe, UKIP is correct that none of the main party leaderships have any intention of offering a referendum which they expect to lead to withdrawal: the strategies differ (don't offer one, or offer one in circumstances where people vote to stay) but none of the leaderships think withdrawal, or making withdrawal likely to happen, in the national interest.
There is, I think, some evidence that UKIP, having initially taken votes mainly from Tories, is now also taking votes from Labour in local elections in areas where Labour dominates. This doesn't seem to be happening in the marginals, though, because it's a specific reaction on the lines of "Labour has had 90% of the councillors in my area forever and my life is still crap, let's try someone else". That doesn't apply in marginals. The appeal to Tories is slightly different - "the Tories are tediously wet and politically correct, let's try someone else" - and does work in marginals too.
"I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity."
Quite - that particular faux pas did for Cam&Os in January2010. They rolled out detail policy statements, took loads of flak and entered GE campaign with a collection of hostages to fortune. Far better to adopt Blair's 97 minimalist "pledge card" approach.
That's right. Uninspiring but correct - it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their incoherent policies, and they don't really need to, do they? It's the price you pay for getting close to power.
You can't compare a national election result to a local election result then assume the difference is down to UKIP. The obvious way to do this is just to poll, since you can ask people how they voted last time. There's been a fair bit of polling like that, and it's very clear that UKIP are getting substantially more ex-Cons than ex-Labs. If this changes we'll see it in the polls, but there's very little sign that it is.
"using the BBC’s national equivalent vote share projections, i.e. this is comparing like with like as it adjusts for the different range of seats up for election"
No, that solves one problem, which is that there were only local elections in part of the country, but it doesn't solve the other, which is that people behave differently in national and local elections.
But you accept that it's polling evidence of Labour losing more than Tory at least in that context.
To UKIP? No, absolutely not. Assuming the national projections are right it's evidence that they're losing vote share to something from national to local election, but apathy is a better candidate than UKIP, as the left isn't exactly buzzing with Ed-Miliband-mania, and it tends to be harder to turn out younger, left-leaning demographics outside high-profile elections.
Well it should be pretty obvious by now that pro Labour people are desperate to push the Tories away from a strategy that they know will hurt Tories first but Labour worst and from my point of view that's better so i don't care. The important thing is Ukip get it and they seem to have.
The Left doesn't like the idea that they could lose traditional votes, since these have always been the bedrock of their support. Maybe it's the recession but atm with WWC comminuities taking much of the grief anyone who's not a Tory has got a pile of disaffected votes potentially available in traditional Labour heartlands.
Yup, slower to switch but potentially loads (although i'd say the Cameroons could have got half of them a few years ago but they decided to poke them in the eye instead).
Below, you said: "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
Mark, I'd take issue with your first assertion, that it's useful to compare UKIP's performance now with the Alliance in the mid-1980s. Then, local election results were playing catch-up off the back of a general election where the Liberals/SDP had very nearly finished second on votes; UKIP, by contrast, were in deposit-losing territory last time around.
The Liberals and SDP also had decades of professional organisation and representation to call on, either inherited from the Liberals or defected from Labour; UKIP is a young party and doesn't.
On a bigger picture however, I'd also take issue with the implicit assertion that the way to breakthrough in politics is to slowly win local councillors, deliver lots of leaflets and sort out problems with wheelie bins and street-lights. That is undoubtedly one route but it's slow and far from assured. Even in the case of the Liberals, it took more than half a century to get back to the sort of parliamentary representation that made a difference, and then what's been the result? A collapse of the electoral coalition that was so painfully put together.
There is another route, which is to bypass all the community activist stuff and go straight for the big time. Some other parties in other countries in the right circumstance have succeeded in this way. Not many, but enough to know that when the playing field's right, it can be done.
The question for UKIP is are the conditions sufficiently right to go for it, because chances are they'll be a lot worse come 2020, one way or another. If EU exit really is what they're after, why waste decades chasing up queries about pot holes when enough pressure applied the right way now might deliver that result within four or five years? Alternatively, if they do seek to establish a place at the top table, who do they push aside in order to do that, how do they do it, and how do they keep that electoral coalition together once it comes under the same pressure that Con, Lab and LD have to handle?
I think the main reason that UKIP is on the rise it's not Europe, it's because politicians refuse to acknowledge how out of touch people think they are or the fact people feel so disillusioned with parties politics because politicians seem to be more interested in political point scoring than actually doing what they should be doing is it any wonder that something like 58 % of people saying they are unlikely to vote and the actions of politicians over things like mp's expenses, or Gordon Brown with Gillian Duffy , Nick Clegg over university funding or David Laws had to pay back £40,000 in expenses he claimed to pay rent on a room in the home of his long-term partner to list a few examples that just reinforce people's perceptions. But the biggest problem is not the fact that politicians are unable to do anything about it but the fact they are unwilling do anything about it So people look at Ukip and think yes a lot of what they say makes sense so what the hell all the others lie anyway so let's give them a go
Farage is very English so that will be a handicap in some places e.g. Scotland, Wales, Liverpool but won't hurt everywhere else. Eventually if there are local sub-leaders for those places then that will sort itself.
Also people with one regional accent don't necessarily see someone with a different regional accent as "one of us" so having a posh accent isn't the problem it's supposed to be - the problem with it is it usually goes with not having a clue what's going on in the less leafy areas not the accent itself. On balance the BBC accent is prob best imo as it's the most neutral but in this country no accent will suit everywhere.
Scotland will be gone so UKIP will have no need to worry about support there.
I echo your sentiments on the way this site has developed.
Things seemed to change after the 2010 election. Today it seems joyless.
I remember writing long posts on how my German Shepherd Heidi would take part in some allegedly scientifically valid rigmarole to decide who would win whatever it was, and people would enter into the tongue in cheek aspects, realizing it was not entirely serious, and it would be fun.
That bonhommie and good fellowship seems to have largely disappeared, replaced by a much more partisan and humorless, smaller group of posters. Where art thou Martin Day?
I visit this site much less than I used to do, and post less too. There seem to be more personal atacks than previously.
Having said that, I would like to place on record my support for the site and wish it every success.
it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their coherent policies, and they don't really need to, either
That's intriguing. So what do UKIP do when they are asked to debate? They surely can't say 'we don't have policies, we don't really need them'?
That did happen in Broxtowe last time - the UKIP candidate said in reply to one question on something quite central on economic policy: "uh, I'm not sure what our policy is on that, but I've got some manifestos in my bag which is at the back of the room somewhere, I can give you one and you may find it." There was general hilarity in the audience. But any halfway trained UKIP candidate has a sheaf of blah answers, of course - e.g. "I have to say that the main parties have had NO solution to this very important problem, and UKIP is ready to seize the opportunity to take a completely fresh look with an open mind." Moreover, it's not that they have no policies, but that they are opportunist and inconsistent. As long as they're not close to power, their voters don't much care.
On organisation, I've seen their effort both in Broxtowe and in by-elections. They have lots of bodies now for one-off efforts, but they don't do much systematic canvassing in my experience. It's more a Chinese-style human wave assault - lots of high-profile people handing out leaflets. Basic message is simply "We're active here too so give us a vote if you want a change."
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
Hello Stuart. Yes - I usually try to make my piece around 550 words; this one came out top-side of 900 so I had to cut some bits somewhere.
The SNP's breakthrough as I see it is one which I don't think is applicable anywhere outside Scotland. Indeed, without a devolved parliament, it's questionable as to whether there would have been a breakthrough at all: the SNP's success at Holyrood hasn't been replicated at Westminster. It may be that if Labour hadn't established Holyrood, the reaction against it would still have boosted the SNP but that we don't know.
So besides that new route, what was it? Firstly, it wasn't an overnight success. The party had been around for decades and had already been through one cycle of near-success and decline before the 1990s. That was founded on 'Scottish' oil and the prospects of wealth through independence - something still traded on by the SNP (understandably), and not offered by any other serious party. I've noted before the link between the SNP's success and the likely future income of North Sea oil.
The other side of the equation was that a vacuum suddenly opened up in Scottish politics which the SNP were able to exploit. In fact, to some extent, that vacuum had been latently there since the 1930s or 1950s, when the Tories took over large parts of the Scottish scene previously dominated by Liberals (the point is sometimes made that the Conservatives 'won' the 1955 general election in Scotland; it's rarely made in the context of the Liberals' dire performance at the same time). The Thatcher years and then the mid-1990s hit the Conservatives hard and once the shine had worn off New Labour, it was inevitable that opposition had to find a focus. The SNP was that focus and Salmond was the right man in the right place at the right time to exploit it, with Labour and Lib Dems having been in power in Scotland, the Tories still insufficiently trusted by too many, and the SNP something of a clean sheet.
If a similar vacuum opens up in GB politics (outside Scotland - the SNP have already taken the equivalent gap there, which largely accounts for UKIP's poor performance north of the border), it is possible that UKIP might do the same. However, they face at least three barriers that the SNP don't have. Firstly, the battlefield is about ten times the size; secondly, they don't have the history and experience that the SNP built up pre-2007; and thirdly, they don't have anything like the strength in depth that the SNP does below leader level.
That's my take and as I'm now going to take the cats to the vets (routine check - nothing to worry about), I'm afraid I don't have chance to reply further.
"Or should they ignore that kind of game-playing altogether..."
Its obvious that Conservatives want UKIP votes, so are trying to sell the 2017 referendum... that to me suggests that playing the longer game is what UKIP should do... Some tory voters on here seem angry that UKIP don't accept Cameron's pledge , but personally I think UKIP should wait until they have as strong a hand as possible.. .
Cameron's pledge will only be acted upon if Cons win a majority, which would rely on UKIP polling under 5% with no chance of a seat... the whole narrative would be that UKIP failed, there is no public support behind BOO etc and would allow a referendum campaign to be led by a confident Europhile PM who had just won a majority, citing dismal figures at the last election for the only party that wants out...
I think if UKIP agreed to that, all the PB peeps that call them "fools" "clowns" "fuzzy wuzzys" and worse would be right to do so
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
"Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
You really are being rather silly JosiasJessop. If you are trying to make out that I'm a sort of Fu Manchu; you are barking up the wrong tree. Try peddling your weird thoughts to where it properly belongs: to the Lab/Lib/Con party that have made such a mess of Britain.
Another good David H leader. I don't agree that the site is declining in quality, even if some threads are hijacked by personal sniping. It remains possibly the best cross-party read in politics.
The existential question of "why are we here, government or influence?" isn't really one which people in smaller parties worry about too much - otherwise the LibDems would have vanished years ago. People support smaller parties because they like their message, or want to cock a snook at all the others.
On Europe, UKIP is correct that none of the main party leaderships have any intention of offering a referendum which they expect to lead to withdrawal: the strategies differ (don't offer one, or offer one in circumstances where people vote to stay) but none of the leaderships think withdrawal, or making withdrawal likely to happen, in the national interest.
There is, I think, some evidence that UKIP, having initially taken votes mainly from Tories, is now also taking votes from Labour in local elections in areas where Labour dominates. This doesn't seem to be happening in the marginals, though, because it's a specific reaction on the lines of "Labour has had 90% of the councillors in my area forever and my life is still crap, let's try someone else". That doesn't apply in marginals. The appeal to Tories is slightly different - "the Tories are tediously wet and politically correct, let's try someone else" - and does work in marginals too.
"I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity."
Quite - that particular faux pas did for Cam&Os in January2010. They rolled out detail policy statements, took loads of flak and entered GE campaign with a collection of hostages to fortune. Far better to adopt Blair's 97 minimalist "pledge card" approach.
That's right. Uninspiring but correct - it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their incoherent policies, and they don't really need to, do they? It's the price you pay for getting close to power.
UKIP won this ward in my constituency, Hornchurch & Upminster, last year. Although the Conservatives have a 16,000 majority overall, this ward, in the poorest part of the borough was a straight fight between Labour & UKIP.
Is it also worth noting that the BNP still got 9%?
Harold Hill: UKIP has won the Gooshays ward by-election Posted on March 22, 2013 by ukipessexadmin
UKIP 831 39% LAB 569 27% CON 280 13% RA 227 11% BNP 202 9%
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
"Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
You really are being rather silly JosiasJessop. If you are trying to make out that I'm a sort of Fu Manchu; you are barking up the wrong tree. Try peddling your weird thoughts to where it properly belongs: to the Lab/Lib/Con party that have made such a mess of Britain.
It's a simple enough question - what's your answer? How do you class 'Britons'?
I came to the conclusion that (post referendum offer) by Dave that Ukippers are staying UKIP. It is another good reason I have taken the view against CON majority
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
Yes, I know, calm down. I asked the question and got an answer
All I am saying is imagine what the going rate would now be if it hadn't been introduced, given that there has been mass immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004, wages could be down to that level here.. if I am right in that they wouldn't have stopped the immigration, and we wouldn't have had a minimum wage?
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
"Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
You really are being rather silly JosiasJessop. If you are trying to make out that I'm a sort of Fu Manchu; you are barking up the wrong tree. Try peddling your weird thoughts to where it properly belongs: to the Lab/Lib/Con party that have made such a mess of Britain.
It's a simple enough question - what's your answer? How do you class 'Britons'?
This is obviously a loaded question, so you can attack what you think the answer is going to be.
Why are you hounding him? He means British people I should think
Can I say a word for the less-committed voters (probably the majority).
They may have one or two particular issues, usually local, but at GEs. they vote on on overall gut feeling. That's why the NOTA, they're all in it for themselves, is popular. Ukip don't need to have a line on every issue, just a broad front. Who reads Labour's manifesto from cover to cover?
Labour are (or were) for the working person and equality, the Tories are for business and industry, and the LDs are for being nice to everyone. Ukip have made a pitch for plain-speaking and common sense and this can resonate when politicians ares seen to be out of touch or unaffected by by their own policies. Ukip can be attacked for being simplistic but the insults need to be nuanced and accurate if they come from professional politicians, or the Mandy Rice-Davies argument comes into play.
I agree with NP's suggestion that Ukip may end up with 10% of the overall vote and 25 to 30% in some constituencies. The final figures my depend on who mounts the attacks and the form they take.
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004,
I remember "Dizzy Thinks" doing a rough calculation on 'what if Labour had cut taxes rather than increased government spending'.
His conclusion was that they could have eliminated income tax. Perhaps a John Major Conservative Party would have done that?
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
I understand your point. I don't think the decision was related to the possible influx since I don't think anyone expected an especially large influx and we were going to do it anyway.
Whether, without a minimum wage, there would have been fewer attracted to come and have a go anyway is a counter-factual that's hard to guess, as is whether the minimum wage made it more worthwhile for UK residents to take less-sklled jobs so there was less impact on domestic unemployment than without it?
Having looked at the appendices for the 2014 Green Capital Bid, I have wondered how far The EU has been driving measures in local government - 25 mph speed limits, emissions charges, residential parking zones (excuse for a tax), introduction of low emission buses etc. How far recent changes in these areas by The Bristol Mayor and Bristol LDs, is in response to EU largesse (grants), or a desire to appease this EU sponsored competition judges is open to question.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
I understand your point. I don't think the decision was related to the possible influx since I don't think anyone expected an especially large influx and we were going to do it anyway.
Whether, without a minimum wage, there would have been fewer attracted to come and have a go anyway is a counter-factual that's hard to guess, as is whether the minimum wage made it more worthwhile for UK residents to take less-sklled jobs so there was less impact on domestic unemployment than without it?
Thanks
Just been trying to imagine different scenarios, that's all. I wonder if a Con govt 97-04 would have meant the same immigration (I am sure it would), with no minimum wage (seems likely)?
It is useful to compare the UKIP performance this year with that of the SDP and Liberals at the same stage in the 1983-1987 Parliament . This year UKIP gained 140 odd seats in the CC elections in May , in 1985 the SDP and Liberals gained over 300 . In local by elections since May UKIP have gained net 3 seats ( 6 gains 3 losses ) , in 1985 the SDP and Liberals gained over 90 seats in council by elections June onwards with 11 gains in December 1985 alone . Despite this far superior performance the 1987 GE showed the Alliance slipping back slightly .and it is easy to conclude that the much weaker UKIP performance this year will lead to zero seats in 2015 .
There is a true difference here, MarkSenior. In the mid 80's there was a Thatcher hating MSM, that seeing the weakness of the then Labour party, boosted up the SDP/Libs at every possible opportunity giving them large coverage. In contrast the MSM has tried every way it can to suppress news of UKIP, unless it can twist the facts to UKIP's disadvantage.
Still, we will overcome. Don't think the Lab/Lib/Cons aregoing to get away with it scott-free this time.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
I understand your point. I don't think the decision was related to the possible influx since I don't think anyone expected an especially large influx and we were going to do it anyway.
Whether, without a minimum wage, there would have been fewer attracted to come and have a go anyway is a counter-factual that's hard to guess, as is whether the minimum wage made it more worthwhile for UK residents to take less-sklled jobs so there was less impact on domestic unemployment than without it?
Thanks
Just been trying to imagine different scenarios, that's all. I wonder if a Con govt 97-04 would have meant the same immigration (I am sure it would), with no minimum wage (seems likely)?
Labour changed the immigration laws. You can see a huge jump in the numbers after 1997.
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
Yes, I know, calm down. I asked the question and got an answer
All I am saying is imagine what the going rate would now be if it hadn't been introduced, given that there has been mass immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004, wages could be down to that level here.. if I am right in that they wouldn't have stopped the immigration, and we wouldn't have had a minimum wage?
Right, what I was trying to say at on the previous thread was that having immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour wouldn't have brought UK wage rates down as far as £1-2 an hour. This is partly because the cost of living is higher so people wouldn't work for that rate, and partly because unless you have enough people moving over who are willing to work for rates that low, which you wouldn't (hence the "would you move to Russia for a 10% raise?" thing), the people who do move over don't need to bid that low to get a job.
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
Yes, I know, calm down. I asked the question and got an answer
All I am saying is imagine what the going rate would now be if it hadn't been introduced, given that there has been mass immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004, wages could be down to that level here.. if I am right in that they wouldn't have stopped the immigration, and we wouldn't have had a minimum wage?
Right, what I was trying to say at on the previous thread was that having immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour wouldn't have brought UK wage rates down as far as £1-2 an hour. This is partly because the cost of living is higher so people wouldn't work for that rate, and partly because unless you have enough people moving over who are willing to work for rates that low, which you wouldn't (hence the "would you move to Russia for a 10% raise?" thing), the people who do move over don't need to bid that low to get a job.
Ok, cheers
Yes, silly of me to think it would go down as far as the EE wages given the different cost of living. Maybe the going rate would be £3-4 an hour (100%-200% raise)
If it was me (and its not!) I would follow the tactical example of nulab(95-97 vintage).
A very few, clearly stated, minimum commitments (a Pledge Card).
Nulab also had the problem of attacking a gov in office that could respond and make changes. Most changes these days are outside the control of the UK gov and so it actually looks(is!) powerless.
UKIP, in my opinion, simply needs to make every attack through the prism of some widely disliked & obnoxious aspect of the EU. Simply define UKIP policies by contrast.
And, of course, cheaper by £53M pd . The fact that no other party can make these attacks on consensus liblabcon policies is, I think, a real bonus.
Mr. Pulpstar, that's the argument against democracy in a nutshell. Equal weight is given to the opinions of the well-informed and intelligent as to the cretinous. Hard to see a system that's better, though. Benevolent dictatorship is marvellous, but there are barely a handful of such examples from history.
Just been trying to imagine different scenarios, that's all. I wonder if a Con govt 97-04 would have meant the same immigration (I am sure it would), with no minimum wage (seems likely)?
If the average voter actually thought hard about what policies would be enacted, Labour would be screwed !
Nice too see you upholding the site tradition......"Labour voters do not think." PB Hodges scorched earth policy continues. Maybe we can rename this place PB - The right wing talk shop.
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
"Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
You really are being rather silly JosiasJessop. If you are trying to make out that I'm a sort of Fu Manchu; you are barking up the wrong tree. Try peddling your weird thoughts to where it properly belongs: to the Lab/Lib/Con party that have made such a mess of Britain.
It's a simple enough question - what's your answer? How do you class 'Britons'?
This is obviously a loaded question, so you can attack what you think the answer is going to be.
Why are you hounding him? He means British people I should think
I'm hardly hounding him.
As someone with a wife who is an immigrant but who is also a UK citizen, I'm rather interested in what UKIP supporters see as her place in this country. Comments like his original one (see above) ring alarm bells.
Perhaps I am being too sensitive, or perhaps UKIP supporters and others should think about these issues a little more widely.
Back on the EU, maybe political parties in the other member states should promise a referendum on kicking the British out.
Dicking everybody around when they're trying to control a serious banking crisis to grandstand over some barely-related domestic issues, demanding that they enlarge the EU for years then suddenly turning around and threatening to block it, and to top it all off hacking into their telecom companies and eavesdropping on Commissioners. They're net contributors to the budget but it's not a lot of money per head - do the other member states really want to have to deal with these people?
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
Yes, I know, calm down. I asked the question and got an answer
All I am saying is imagine what the going rate would now be if it hadn't been introduced, given that there has been mass immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004, wages could be down to that level here.. if I am right in that they wouldn't have stopped the immigration, and we wouldn't have had a minimum wage?
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Most of the Christmas wrappings been done, I'm teasing Mrs J mercilessly about what her present is, and there are some mince pies in the oven. We have no work for ten days, and are looking forward to seeing friends and family.
Everything is serene. I even stayed in bed until six this morning. ;-)
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
"Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
You really are being rather silly JosiasJessop. If you are trying to make out that I'm a sort of Fu Manchu; you are barking up the wrong tree. Try peddling your weird thoughts to where it properly belongs: to the Lab/Lib/Con party that have made such a mess of Britain.
It's a simple enough question - what's your answer? How do you class 'Britons'?
This is obviously a loaded question, so you can attack what you think the answer is going to be.
Why are you hounding him? He means British people I should think
I'm hardly hounding him.
As someone with a wife who is an immigrant but who is also a UK citizen, I'm rather interested in what UKIP supporters see as her place in this country. Comments like his original one (see above) ring alarm bells.
Perhaps I am being too sensitive, or perhaps UKIP supporters and others should think about these issues a little more widely.
I think you are being too sensitive, to be honest.
I am well aware your wife is a Turkish engineer, but when a supporter of a party that wants out of the EU says he wants the power to affect the daily lives of Britons, there is no need to constantly search for hidden meanings. It seems obvious to me he is saying we should run our own country with no outside interference.
" "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset "
Hugely over sensitive... and are Britons really a small subset of people in Britain?!
Evidently maths is not UKIP's strong point, as they seem to think HS2 will cost £70 billion ...
:-)
Maybe they're getting the number from the Institute for Economic Affairs. You remember they did that "study" where they say things like, "Having got a train you'll probably like it so much you'll want a tram as well, so add in the cost of that" etc etc. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/hs2-budget-rail-study
" to top it all off hacking into their telecom companies and eavesdropping on Commissioners...- do the other member states really want to have to deal with these people?"
Well at least we won't be surprised if they don't..
Evidently maths is not UKIP's strong point, as they seem to think HS2 will cost £70 billion ...
:-)
£70 billion ? Probably about right.
Major public construction project comes in on time and on budget would be a story.
If you think HS2 is going to cost £70 billion then you really need to read more about it. The IEA only got to the £80 billion by farcically including things like Crossrail 2 ...
Hello Stuart. Yes - I usually try to make my piece around 550 words; this one came out top-side of 900 so I had to cut some bits somewhere.
The SNP's breakthrough as I see it is one which I don't think is applicable anywhere outside Scotland. Indeed, without a devolved parliament, it's questionable as to whether there would have been a breakthrough at all: the SNP's success at Holyrood hasn't been replicated at Westminster. It may be that if Labour hadn't established Holyrood, the reaction against it would still have boosted the SNP but that we don't know.
So besides that new route, what was it? Firstly, it wasn't an overnight success. The party had been around for decades and had already been through one cycle of near-success and decline before the 1990s. That was founded on 'Scottish' oil and the prospects of wealth through independence - something still traded on by the SNP (understandably), and not offered by any other serious party. I've noted before the link between the SNP's success and the likely future income of North Sea oil.
The other side of the equation was that a vacuum suddenly opened up in Scottish politics which the SNP were able to exploit.... snip
Thanks. I wasn't expecting such a long reply. As you are not about I'll reply another time.
Incidentally, I think that the oil thing is a bit of a red herring, but I can understand why many, especially non-Scots, latch on to it as it is an extremely easy concept to comprehend. Much more difficult to grasp is the evolution of Scottish society and culture during the 2nd half of the 20th century. As that is a huge topic, requiring extensive research and familiarity with the many issues, it is usually glossed over by political debaters.
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
Have you considered getting a tinfoil hat?
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
Yes, I know, calm down. I asked the question and got an answer
All I am saying is imagine what the going rate would now be if it hadn't been introduced, given that there has been mass immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004, wages could be down to that level here.. if I am right in that they wouldn't have stopped the immigration, and we wouldn't have had a minimum wage?
I'm perfectly calm, thanks. Most of the Christmas wrappings been done,
I've been trying to perfect "Japanese style gift wrapping" this year. They should have tried this on the Generation Game.
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
"Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
You really are being rather silly JosiasJessop. If you are trying to make out that I'm a sort of Fu Manchu; you are barking up the wrong tree. Try peddling your weird thoughts to where it properly belongs: to the Lab/Lib/Con party that have made such a mess of Britain.
It's a simple enough question - what's your answer? How do you class 'Britons'?
This is obviously a loaded question, so you can attack what you think the answer is going to be.
Why are you hounding him? He means British people I should think
I'm hardly hounding him.
As someone with a wife who is an immigrant but who is also a UK citizen, I'm rather interested in what UKIP supporters see as her place in this country. Comments like his original one (see above) ring alarm bells.
Perhaps I am being too sensitive, or perhaps UKIP supporters and others should think about these issues a little more widely.
I think you are being too sensitive, to be honest.
I am well aware your wife is a Turkish engineer, but when a supporter of a party that wants out of the EU says he wants the power to affect the daily lives of Britons, there is no need to constantly search for hidden meanings. It seems obvious to me he is saying we should run our own country with no outside interference.
" "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset "
Hugely over sensitive... and are Britons really a small subset of people in Britain?!
UKIP have a problem in that some perceive them to be Little Englanders, and anti-immigrants. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask a UKIP supporter or sympathiser exactly what they mean on these topics.
They may not want to answer, but it is a reasonable question.
I'm teasing Mrs J mercilessly about what her present is,
One of the best things about birthdays and Christmas.
I tried that the first year we were married - she put me in a fore arm lock until I told her.
The following year, 'teasing' was off the agenda.
She always wants to open presents early - they're like catnip to her. She has yet to resort to a fore arm lock. I'd better make sure she doesn't read this thread ... ;-)
Another good David H leader. I don't agree that the site is declining in quality, even if some threads are hijacked by personal sniping. It remains possibly the best cross-party read in politics.
The existential question of "why are we here, government or influence?" isn't really one which people in smaller parties worry about too much - otherwise the LibDems would have vanished years ago. People support smaller parties because they like their message, or want to cock a snook at all the others.
On Europe, UKIP is correct that none of the main party leaderships have any intention of offering a referendum which they expect to lead to withdrawal: the strategies differ (don't offer one, or offer one in circumstances where people vote to stay) but none of the leaderships think withdrawal, or making withdrawal likely to happen, in the national interest.
There is, I think, some evidence that UKIP, having initially taken votes mainly from Tories, is now also taking votes from Labour in local elections in areas where Labour dominates. This doesn't seem to be happening in the marginals, though, because it's a specific reaction on the lines of "Labour has had 90% of the councillors in my area forever and my life is still crap, let's try someone else". That doesn't apply in marginals. The appeal to Tories is slightly different - "the Tories are tediously wet and politically correct, let's try someone else" - and does work in marginals too.
"I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity."
Quite - that particular faux pas did for Cam&Os in January2010. They rolled out detail policy statements, took loads of flak and entered GE campaign with a collection of hostages to fortune. Far better to adopt Blair's 97 minimalist "pledge card" approach.
That's right. Uninspiring but correct - it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their incoherent policies, and they don't really need to, do they? It's the price you pay for getting close to power.
UKIP won this ward in my constituency, Hornchurch & Upminster, last year. Although the Conservatives have a 16,000 majority overall, this ward, in the poorest part of the borough was a straight fight between Labour & UKIP.
Is it also worth noting that the BNP still got 9%?
Harold Hill: UKIP has won the Gooshays ward by-election Posted on March 22, 2013 by ukipessexadmin
UKIP 831 39% LAB 569 27% CON 280 13% RA 227 11% BNP 202 9%
BNP had a councillor elected in Gooshays in 2006 and a by election in 2008 , their impact in the 2010 GE was minimal . Those voters have now largely moved to UKIP who impact on Hornchurch and Upminster will also be minimal .
I'm teasing Mrs J mercilessly about what her present is,
One of the best things about birthdays and Christmas.
I tried that the first year we were married - she put me in a fore arm lock until I told her.
The following year, 'teasing' was off the agenda.
She always wants to open presents early - they're like catnip to her. She has yet to resort to a fore arm lock. I'd better make sure she doesn't read this thread ... ;-)
What is it about wives and presents. Mine even gets upset when I don't ask her about mine. It's a present, it can wait until Christmas.
Excellent stuff from David H.I'm doing some ground work in a Con-Lab marginal where the Libdem switchers to Labour are not quite enough to secure victory.It seems the Labour party has woken up at last to the threat of Ukip.I'm sure David would given more but mention of some recent by-elections in Labour heartlands in those seats Labour has to win seems to have woken up the Labour establishment who up to now were happy to sit on their hands,as Ukip largely took from the Tories. This is the pool I am fishing in.It largely consists of the over 60s,white working/middle class males.I am finding lots of support for the 1983 Labour manifesto but no volunteers for diversity/equality training. Merry Christmas-one of the reasons I do like this site,apart from the gambling,is it often reminds me of an acute psychiatric ward I used to attempt to run in the 80s.
Hello Stuart. Yes - I usually try to make my piece around 550 words; this one came out top-side of 900 so I had to cut some bits somewhere.
The SNP's breakthrough as I see it is one which I don't think is applicable anywhere outside Scotland. Indeed, without a devolved parliament, it's questionable as to whether there would have been a breakthrough at all: the SNP's success at Holyrood hasn't been replicated at Westminster. It may be that if Labour hadn't established Holyrood, the reaction against it would still have boosted the SNP but that we don't know.
So besides that new route, what was it? Firstly, it wasn't an overnight success. The party had been around for decades and had already been through one cycle of near-success and decline before the 1990s. That was founded on 'Scottish' oil and the prospects of wealth through independence - something still traded on by the SNP (understandably), and not offered by any other serious party. I've noted before the link between the SNP's success and the likely future income of North Sea oil.
The other side of the equation was that a vacuum suddenly opened up in Scottish politics which the SNP were able to exploit.... snip
Thanks. I wasn't expecting such a long reply. As you are not about I'll reply another time.
Incidentally, I think that the oil thing is a bit of a red herring, but I can understand why many, especially non-Scots, latch on to it as it is an extremely easy concept to comprehend. Much more difficult to grasp is the evolution of Scottish society and culture during the 2nd half of the 20th century. As that is a huge topic, requiring extensive research and familiarity with the many issues, it is usually glossed over by political debaters.
It'll be interesting and edifying to hear the view from Sweden on contemporary Scottish society.
Ditto - I still have the photo to Heidi you sent to me! We had fun discussing vegetables, and all sorts of other things during quiet periods. Now its just not as it was. That's fine for those who like this instead.
I hang out on message boards that discuss the intricacies of Christian text adaptations, screen writing/who's good and who isn't and fight scene choreography et al. It's much more interesting and I've learned a lot that's just as nerdy [don't get me started on the how to kill or identity 40 different sorts of demons or angelic hierarchy] and can get a bit partisan, but rarely unpleasant.
I pop in maybe once a day for a look and to leave the odd comment. I spend more time over at The Times which has some great and very well informed posters.
I echo your sentiments on the way this site has developed.
Things seemed to change after the 2010 election. Today it seems joyless.
I remember writing long posts on how my German Shepherd Heidi would take part in some allegedly scientifically valid rigmarole to decide who would win whatever it was, and people would enter into the tongue in cheek aspects, realizing it was not entirely serious, and it would be fun.
That bonhommie and good fellowship seems to have largely disappeared, replaced by a much more partisan and humorless, smaller group of posters. Where art thou Martin Day?
I visit this site much less than I used to do, and post less too. There seem to be more personal atacks than previously.
Having said that, I would like to place on record my support for the site and wish it every success.
Another good David H leader. I don't agree that the site is declining in quality, even if some threads are hijacked by personal sniping. It remains possibly the best cross-party read in politics.
"I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity."
Quite - that particular faux pas did for Cam&Os in January2010. They rolled out detail policy statements, took loads of flak and entered GE campaign with a collection of hostages to fortune. Far better to adopt Blair's 97 minimalist "pledge card" approach.
That's right. Uninspiring but correct - it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their incoherent policies, and they don't really need to, do they? It's the price you pay for getting close to power.
UKIP won this ward in my constituency, Hornchurch & Upminster, last year. Although the Conservatives have a 16,000 majority overall, this ward, in the poorest part of the borough was a straight fight between Labour & UKIP.
Is it also worth noting that the BNP still got 9%?
Harold Hill: UKIP has won the Gooshays ward by-election Posted on March 22, 2013 by ukipessexadmin
UKIP 831 39% LAB 569 27% CON 280 13% RA 227 11% BNP 202 9%
BNP had a councillor elected in Gooshays in 2006 and a by election in 2008 , their impact in the 2010 GE was minimal . Those voters have now largely moved to UKIP who impact on Hornchurch and Upminster will also be minimal .
What price do you want to give on UKIP winning or coming 2nd in Hornchurch and Upminster?
One of Herdsons best thought out articles asks many questions.
.
?
blockquote>
It's a simple enough question - what's your answer? How do you class 'Britons'?
This is obviously a loaded question, so you can attack what you think the answer is going to be.
Why are you hounding him? He means British people I should think
I'm hardly hounding him.
As someone with a wife who is an immigrant but who is also a UK citizen, I'm rather interested in what UKIP supporters see as her place in this country. Comments like his original one (see above) ring alarm bells.
Perhaps I am being too sensitive, or perhaps UKIP supporters and others should think about these issues a little more widely.
I think you are being too sensitive, to be honest.
I am well aware your wife is a Turkish engineer, but when a supporter of a party that wants out of the EU says he wants the power to affect the daily lives of Britons, there is no need to constantly search for hidden meanings. It seems obvious to me he is saying we should run our own country with no outside interference.
" "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset "
Hugely over sensitive... and are Britons really a small subset of people in Britain?!
UKIP have a problem in that some perceive them to be Little Englanders, and anti-immigrants. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to ask a UKIP supporter or sympathiser exactly what they mean on these topics.
They may not want to answer, but it is a reasonable question.
It's seems more that you seem to see every immigration issue through the prism of your marriage to me
If wanting a UK government to have 'power to affect the daily lives of Britons' seems '"truly chilling' to you, I really think you are being over sensitive.
Petty arguments on here make people dig their heels in, exaggerate positions and play devils advocate, but you cant honestly think that @MikeK is some kind of fascist or Nazi, which is obviously what you are implying
I think you're being a little touchy here. "Briton" is defined as "a native or inhabitant of Great Britain, or a person of British descent." I assume your wife lives in GB?
The only reason for reading something else into it would be by knowing the person and the tone of voice they used.
I think you're being a little touchy here. "Briton" is defined as "a native or inhabitant of Great Britain, or a person of British descent." I assume your wife lives in GB?
The only reason for reading something else into it would be by knowing the person and the tone of voice they used.
just has a large chip on his shoulder, typical pc clowns nowadays, always desperate to shout "racist"
Hello Stuart. Yes - I usually try to make my piece around 550 words; this one came out top-side of 900 so I had to cut some bits somewhere.
.... I've noted before the link between the SNP's success and the likely future income of North Sea oil.
The other side of the equation was that a vacuum suddenly opened up in Scottish politics which the SNP were able to exploit.... snip
Thanks. I wasn't expecting such a long reply. As you are not about I'll reply another time.
Incidentally, I think that the oil thing is a bit of a red herring, but I can understand why many, especially non-Scots, latch on to it as it is an extremely easy concept to comprehend. Much more difficult to grasp is the evolution of Scottish society and culture during the 2nd half of the 20th century. As that is a huge topic, requiring extensive research and familiarity with the many issues, it is usually glossed over by political debaters.
Most interesting - I look forward etc. But, for now, the oil issue (as with contemporary British politics) has for some reason become a sideshow. The No Campaign argue it is too little too late, then when the companies kept finding new oilfields and investing, argue it won't sell for much, or if it does then they say the Jocks can't be trusted to spend the money sensibly - not very consistent, to put it mildly. The Yes campaign argument is rather subtler - it is that the Scottish economy is more soundly based than the UK one even without oil, which is 'only' a bonus to the underlying resources of energy, water and farmland as well as what's left of industry and the universities.
On a personal note, I like it very much that the SNP's long term policy is close to the sensible thing to do with oil - shift to saving it for petrochemical feedstock and specialist transport fuel, and use renewable instead for bulk energy (I believe renewable is already 40% or so of Scottish energy needs this week, and we haven't even started on tidal beyond R&D: anyone who has sailed through Coirebhreacan or Dorus Mor at the right time of the tidal cycle has no doubt about the power involved).
And as for Labour, I wonder how much of an impact it has on their prospects to the extent that they are seen as having managed to get the only Scottish petrochemical plant very nearly closed for good as collateral damage from their local problems at Falkirk (the pros and cons of the latter being a separate issue which I won't go into here).
It's seems more that you seem to see every immigration issue through the prism of your marriage to me
If wanting a UK government to have 'power to affect the daily lives of Britons' seems '"truly chilling' to you, I really think you are being over sensitive.
Petty arguments on here make people dig their heels in, exaggerate positions and play devils advocate, but you cant honestly think that @MikeK is some kind of fascist or Nazi, which is obviously what you are implying
I am implying no such thing, however much you may be trying to say I am. You've just Godwin'd yourself.
I don't see every immigration issue through such a prism: if you look back at my posts over the last couple of days, you can see where I have posted about problems caused by mass immigration, including to the home countries of immigrants, and on local services in this country.
As a genuine question, when did you last make a comment on here praising immigration and immigrants?
I think you're being a little touchy here. "Briton" is defined as "a native or inhabitant of Great Britain, or a person of British descent." I assume your wife lives in GB?
The only reason for reading something else into it would be by knowing the person and the tone of voice they used.
just has a large chip on his shoulder, typical pc clowns nowadays, always desperate to shout "racist"
No large chip on my shoulder, not even an FPGA. :-)
And I have not mentioned racism anywhere in my posts.
Back on the EU, maybe political parties in the other member states should promise a referendum on kicking the British out.
Dicking everybody around when they're trying to control a serious banking crisis to grandstand over some barely-related domestic issues, demanding that they enlarge the EU for years then suddenly turning around and threatening to block it, and to top it all off hacking into their telecom companies and eavesdropping on Commissioners. They're net contributors to the budget but it's not a lot of money per head - do the other member states really want to have to deal with these people?
Every EU country is unpopular, with the others, in its own way: France is selfish, Germany, bossy, Ireland, ungrateful, Spain, profligate, Italy, profligate and crazy, etc.
No, the one thing that REALLY annoys the rest of the EU, about the UK, is the fact that the British were completely and utterly right about the insanity of the euro, and as a result the British are freed from its ongoing horrors. They loathe us for being correct.
I must admit to having placed a large black mark against the name of any UK politician who supported us joining the Euro. As for those that still do ...
(shakes head and mutters).
Is the EZ crisis even properly over yet, or have the cracks just been papered over at great expense? It seems Ireland is becoming healthier, but what about the other PIIGS?
It's seems more that you seem to see every immigration issue through the prism of your marriage to me
If wanting a UK government to have 'power to affect the daily lives of Britons' seems '"truly chilling' to you, I really think you are being over sensitive.
Petty arguments on here make people dig their heels in, exaggerate positions and play devils advocate, but you cant honestly think that @MikeK is some kind of fascist or Nazi, which is obviously what you are implying
I am implying no such thing, however much you may be trying to say I am. You've just Godwin'd yourself.
I don't see every immigration issue through such a prism: if you look back at my posts over the last couple of days, you can see where I have posted about problems caused by mass immigration, including to the home countries of immigrants, and on local services in this country.
As a genuine question, when did you last make a comment on here praising immigration and immigrants?
I just say what I think rather than fart arsing around
You said the thought of "power to affect the daily lives of Britons" was "truly chilling" then kept asking what the guy meant by "Britons"
Blatantly obvious you were trying to frame him as a racist, or an extremist, the least you could do is admit it.
If not what was so "chilling" about him saying it?
I hope people who say there is too much bickering on here remember my make up present to @TheScreamingEagles was to tip Suarez 1st goal at 2s, Suarez brace at 2s, and Suarez Hat Trick at 8s...
It's seems more that you seem to see every immigration issue through the prism of your marriage to me
If wanting a UK government to have 'power to affect the daily lives of Britons' seems '"truly chilling' to you, I really think you are being over sensitive.
Petty arguments on here make people dig their heels in, exaggerate positions and play devils advocate, but you cant honestly think that @MikeK is some kind of fascist or Nazi, which is obviously what you are implying
I am implying no such thing, however much you may be trying to say I am. You've just Godwin'd yourself.
I don't see every immigration issue through such a prism: if you look back at my posts over the last couple of days, you can see where I have posted about problems caused by mass immigration, including to the home countries of immigrants, and on local services in this country.
As a genuine question, when did you last make a comment on here praising immigration and immigrants?
I just say what I think rather than fart arsing around
You said the thought of "power to affect the daily lives of Britons" was "truly chilling" then kept asking what the guy meant by "Britons"
Blatantly obvious you were trying to frame him as a racist, or an extremist, the least you could do is admit it.
If not what was so "chilling" about him saying it?
Oh for Pete's sake, I was not trying to frame him in any such way. I was asking him a question.
It came across to me as a chilling way of putting it. Re-reading the entire post, it still seems an odd way of expressing his point. You obviously differ. Given that it had that effect on me, it seems reasonable to ask him what he meant.
As for fart-arsing around: isn't that what we all do on PB?
It seems that UKIP are vying with the SNP for the positron of most touchy and easy to offend political party.
Comments
http://www.scottishelections.org.uk/
http://www.welshelections.org.uk/
http://www.englishelections.org.uk/
As Harry Hayfield regularly links to them in his local by-election pieces, perhaps he or any other by-election afficionado can inform us of the status of these services.
I think 'either power or influence' is a false premise. They amount to the same thing and UKIP supporters want both.
It's easy to see why 2015 will be better for the kippers than 2010:
The average age of voters will be higher and so therefore will be a desire for 'traditional' values.
The number of people who are policy-blind-party-voters will be fewer as the pace of change picks up and people get better at switching.
The Euros will get people used to ticking the UKIP box. 2014 is great timing for getting some practice in. I fully expect the BBC (the UK's chief influencer of opinion) to neglect its 'educate' remit at these elections and not tell anyone how the EU actually works. But then more people are learning via the net and papers, and making the EU look attractive is increasing difficult for them.
The shot-UKIP-fox-referendum line the Tories are promoting is duff. If you want a referendum, let's have one now. And besides Cam, Mil and Clegg will all be stay-iners. When most voters will be outers and therefore on Farage's side.
UKIP will be the 'plague on all you houses' vote. Not the LDs. And UKIP voters aren't going to 'vote tactically' to keep Con in or Lab out. Voting UKIP is their tactical vote. And they're going to vote UKIP no matter what. The tactic is to send a message, and if that brings seats so much the better.
The number of people in the UK who are directly experiencing immigration and multiculturalism will be greater as metropolitan immigrants (more obvious ones ie nonwhite, religious types) continue to ripple out through the suburbs and into the counties. Positives, but mainly negatives and on balance this will increase support for UKIP. Allied to this, Labour's 'you are a racist if you are not celebrating diversity' shtick is losing its effect and is less of hindrance to voting for UKIP.
UKIP have demonstrated excellent bullet-proof, Teflon qualities. Bloom, NF lady, Nazification of Farage . All water off a duck's back. So getting side-swiped is less of a concern.
Of course, anything could happen and no doubt the establishment will try to make sure it does. But Farage is right to talk about the possibility of earthquakes during the Euros and beyond.
David, you provide an explanation (presumably not the only explanation) for the successful establishment of the Labour Party, however, you fail to even attempt to provide an explanation for the successful establishment of the Scottish National Party.
I could present my own thoughts, but I wonder if you would care to present your own theory as to why the SNP, highly unusually, made "the leap" as you call it.
we've seen what coalition negotiations do to manifesto commitments, I'm sure ruthless Ed will be up to it.
Actually there does seem to be quite an upside for Ed to make the promise, however shallow his intent. What does it do to Dave's USP "you can only get a referendum with me"?
Nothing good for Dave i'm sure.
Not convinced 2015 is UKIP's best/only chance. It is, I think , its best chance of establishing itself as a viable option. If they get say 10% nationally and 25-30% in some seats (which seems a reasonable guess), they will be well placed to make further progress as the next government, of whatever flavour, will not find things easy.
The existential question of "why are we here, government or influence?" isn't really one which people in smaller parties worry about too much - otherwise the LibDems would have vanished years ago. People support smaller parties because they like their message, or want to cock a snook at all the others.
On Europe, UKIP is correct that none of the main party leaderships have any intention of offering a referendum which they expect to lead to withdrawal: the strategies differ (don't offer one, or offer one in circumstances where people vote to stay) but none of the leaderships think withdrawal, or making withdrawal likely to happen, in the national interest.
There is, I think, some evidence that UKIP, having initially taken votes mainly from Tories, is now also taking votes from Labour in local elections in areas where Labour dominates. This doesn't seem to be happening in the marginals, though, because it's a specific reaction on the lines of "Labour has had 90% of the councillors in my area forever and my life is still crap, let's try someone else". That doesn't apply in marginals. The appeal to Tories is slightly different - "the Tories are tediously wet and politically correct, let's try someone else" - and does work in marginals too. That's right. Uninspiring but correct - it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their incoherent policies, and they don't really need to, do they? It's the price you pay for getting close to power.
Right now it is.
Only yesterday we were being told The Parliament Act would be deployed to make us all believe.
The Liberals and SDP also had decades of professional organisation and representation to call on, either inherited from the Liberals or defected from Labour; UKIP is a young party and doesn't.
On a bigger picture however, I'd also take issue with the implicit assertion that the way to breakthrough in politics is to slowly win local councillors, deliver lots of leaflets and sort out problems with wheelie bins and street-lights. That is undoubtedly one route but it's slow and far from assured. Even in the case of the Liberals, it took more than half a century to get back to the sort of parliamentary representation that made a difference, and then what's been the result? A collapse of the electoral coalition that was so painfully put together.
There is another route, which is to bypass all the community activist stuff and go straight for the big time. Some other parties in other countries in the right circumstance have succeeded in this way. Not many, but enough to know that when the playing field's right, it can be done.
The question for UKIP is are the conditions sufficiently right to go for it, because chances are they'll be a lot worse come 2020, one way or another. If EU exit really is what they're after, why waste decades chasing up queries about pot holes when enough pressure applied the right way now might deliver that result within four or five years? Alternatively, if they do seek to establish a place at the top table, who do they push aside in order to do that, how do they do it, and how do they keep that electoral coalition together once it comes under the same pressure that Con, Lab and LD have to handle?
it is not in UKIP's interest to have detailed examination of their coherent policies, and they don't really need to, either
and the actions of politicians over things like mp's expenses, or Gordon Brown with Gillian Duffy , Nick Clegg over university funding or David Laws had to pay back £40,000 in expenses he claimed to pay rent on a room in the home of his long-term partner to list a few examples that just reinforce people's perceptions.
But the biggest problem is not the fact that politicians are unable to do anything about it but the fact they are unwilling do anything about it
So people look at Ukip and think yes a lot of what they say makes sense so what the hell all the others lie anyway so let's give them a go
Just like the Greens, they soon turned away from the idea of high-speed rail, although for different reasons.
When you try to get the 2010 manifesto to check, you get:
http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/UKIPmanifesto1304a.pdf
Although there is a summary here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617187.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03m74hy/Newsnight_20_12_2013/
On organisation, I've seen their effort both in Broxtowe and in by-elections. They have lots of bodies now for one-off efforts, but they don't do much systematic canvassing in my experience. It's more a Chinese-style human wave assault - lots of high-profile people handing out leaflets. Basic message is simply "We're active here too so give us a vote if you want a change."
isam said:
It was extraordinarily lucky that they did introduce it, else the going rate would now be closer to the wages in Eastern Europe
edmundintokyo said
Probably not - even in free economies without migration restrictions or labour market price-fixing you can get quite a lot of variation between wage rates in different areas. Part of this reflects the higher cost of living in higher-wage places, but part of it is just that most people don't want to move that much. If somebody offered you a job in Russia paying 10% more, you wouldn't necessarily drop everything and move over there. There are people who would, but it's a minority personality type, and there aren't enough of them to erase the variations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@edmundintokyo
@NickPalmer
Sorry, maybe Im misunderstanding.... I was wondering whether it was a happy accident that Labour introduced the minimum wage before the 2004 Accession. I wasn't saying it was the reason that the Eastern Europeans came, more that without the minimum wage being brought in, the same number of migrants would have come, but would be working for half the wages they are now... not sure if Im making myself clear, apols
A minimum wage had been talked about for years, perhaps decades, in leftist circles. It, or its many alternatives, is an obvious move for any left-wing government to make.
The SNP's breakthrough as I see it is one which I don't think is applicable anywhere outside Scotland. Indeed, without a devolved parliament, it's questionable as to whether there would have been a breakthrough at all: the SNP's success at Holyrood hasn't been replicated at Westminster. It may be that if Labour hadn't established Holyrood, the reaction against it would still have boosted the SNP but that we don't know.
So besides that new route, what was it? Firstly, it wasn't an overnight success. The party had been around for decades and had already been through one cycle of near-success and decline before the 1990s. That was founded on 'Scottish' oil and the prospects of wealth through independence - something still traded on by the SNP (understandably), and not offered by any other serious party. I've noted before the link between the SNP's success and the likely future income of North Sea oil.
The other side of the equation was that a vacuum suddenly opened up in Scottish politics which the SNP were able to exploit. In fact, to some extent, that vacuum had been latently there since the 1930s or 1950s, when the Tories took over large parts of the Scottish scene previously dominated by Liberals (the point is sometimes made that the Conservatives 'won' the 1955 general election in Scotland; it's rarely made in the context of the Liberals' dire performance at the same time). The Thatcher years and then the mid-1990s hit the Conservatives hard and once the shine had worn off New Labour, it was inevitable that opposition had to find a focus. The SNP was that focus and Salmond was the right man in the right place at the right time to exploit it, with Labour and Lib Dems having been in power in Scotland, the Tories still insufficiently trusted by too many, and the SNP something of a clean sheet.
If a similar vacuum opens up in GB politics (outside Scotland - the SNP have already taken the equivalent gap there, which largely accounts for UKIP's poor performance north of the border), it is possible that UKIP might do the same. However, they face at least three barriers that the SNP don't have. Firstly, the battlefield is about ten times the size; secondly, they don't have the history and experience that the SNP built up pre-2007; and thirdly, they don't have anything like the strength in depth that the SNP does below leader level.
That's my take and as I'm now going to take the cats to the vets (routine check - nothing to worry about), I'm afraid I don't have chance to reply further.
"Or should they ignore that kind of game-playing altogether..."
Its obvious that Conservatives want UKIP votes, so are trying to sell the 2017 referendum... that to me suggests that playing the longer game is what UKIP should do... Some tory voters on here seem angry that UKIP don't accept Cameron's pledge , but personally I think UKIP should wait until they have as strong a hand as possible.. .
Cameron's pledge will only be acted upon if Cons win a majority, which would rely on UKIP polling under 5% with no chance of a seat... the whole narrative would be that UKIP failed, there is no public support behind BOO etc and would allow a referendum campaign to be led by a confident Europhile PM who had just won a majority, citing dismal figures at the last election for the only party that wants out...
I think if UKIP agreed to that, all the PB peeps that call them "fools" "clowns" "fuzzy wuzzys" and worse would be right to do so
Is it also worth noting that the BNP still got 9%?
Harold Hill: UKIP has won the Gooshays ward by-election
Posted on March 22, 2013 by ukipessexadmin
UKIP 831 39%
LAB 569 27%
CON 280 13%
RA 227 11%
BNP 202 9%
http://ukipessex.org/?p=6542
All I am saying is imagine what the going rate would now be if it hadn't been introduced, given that there has been mass immigration from countries where the going rate is £1-2 an hour
If we had a Conservative Govt from 1997-2004, wages could be down to that level here.. if I am right in that they wouldn't have stopped the immigration, and we wouldn't have had a minimum wage?
Why are you hounding him? He means British people I should think
They may have one or two particular issues, usually local, but at GEs. they vote on on overall gut feeling. That's why the NOTA, they're all in it for themselves, is popular. Ukip don't need to have a line on every issue, just a broad front. Who reads Labour's manifesto from cover to cover?
Labour are (or were) for the working person and equality, the Tories are for business and industry, and the LDs are for being nice to everyone. Ukip have made a pitch for plain-speaking and common sense and this can resonate when politicians ares seen to be out of touch or unaffected by by their own policies. Ukip can be attacked for being simplistic but the insults need to be nuanced and accurate if they come from professional politicians, or the Mandy Rice-Davies argument comes into play.
I agree with NP's suggestion that Ukip may end up with 10% of the overall vote and 25 to 30% in some constituencies. The final figures my depend on who mounts the attacks and the form they take.
His conclusion was that they could have eliminated income tax. Perhaps a John Major Conservative Party would have done that?
Whether, without a minimum wage, there would have been fewer attracted to come and have a go anyway is a counter-factual that's hard to guess, as is whether the minimum wage made it more worthwhile for UK residents to take less-sklled jobs so there was less impact on domestic unemployment than without it?
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MDR0763Rp00011a-Synopsis-Technical-Assessment-Report.pdf
I would suggest that few voters are aware of this when asked about the importance of the EU as political issue.
Just been trying to imagine different scenarios, that's all. I wonder if a Con govt 97-04 would have meant the same immigration (I am sure it would), with no minimum wage (seems likely)?
In the mid 80's there was a Thatcher hating MSM, that seeing the weakness of the then Labour party, boosted up the SDP/Libs at every possible opportunity giving them large coverage. In contrast the MSM has tried every way it can to suppress news of UKIP, unless it can twist the facts to UKIP's disadvantage.
Still, we will overcome. Don't think the Lab/Lib/Cons aregoing to get away with it scott-free this time.
And now I must do some last minute shopping.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org.uk/latest-immigration-statistics
The Conservatives have not reintroduced the pre-1997 immigration laws.
I reckon 2014 will be the year that labour have to start worrying about UKIP, too.
Romania/Bulgaria is going to be disaster for all the main parties, and that includes you too, Ed.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-look-ahead-to-2014.html
Yes, silly of me to think it would go down as far as the EE wages given the different cost of living. Maybe the going rate would be £3-4 an hour (100%-200% raise)
If it was me (and its not!) I would follow the tactical example of nulab(95-97 vintage).
A very few, clearly stated, minimum commitments (a Pledge Card).
Nulab also had the problem of attacking a gov in office that could respond and make changes. Most changes these days are outside the control of the UK gov and so it actually looks(is!) powerless.
UKIP, in my opinion, simply needs to make every attack through the prism of some widely disliked & obnoxious aspect of the EU. Simply define UKIP policies by contrast.
And, of course, cheaper by £53M pd . The fact that no other party can make these attacks on consensus liblabcon policies is, I think, a real bonus.
http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for#3-rebuild-prosperity-and-keeping-the-lights-on
As someone with a wife who is an immigrant but who is also a UK citizen, I'm rather interested in what UKIP supporters see as her place in this country. Comments like his original one (see above) ring alarm bells.
Perhaps I am being too sensitive, or perhaps UKIP supporters and others should think about these issues a little more widely.
Dicking everybody around when they're trying to control a serious banking crisis to grandstand over some barely-related domestic issues, demanding that they enlarge the EU for years then suddenly turning around and threatening to block it, and to top it all off hacking into their telecom companies and eavesdropping on Commissioners. They're net contributors to the budget but it's not a lot of money per head - do the other member states really want to have to deal with these people?
Everything is serene. I even stayed in bed until six this morning. ;-)
:-)
I know. I think its a disadvantage.
Major public construction project comes in on time and on budget would be a story.
One of the best things about birthdays and Christmas.
I am well aware your wife is a Turkish engineer, but when a supporter of a party that wants out of the EU says he wants the power to affect the daily lives of Britons, there is no need to constantly search for hidden meanings. It seems obvious to me he is saying we should run our own country with no outside interference.
" "Power to affect the daily lives of Britons"
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset "
Hugely over sensitive... and are Britons really a small subset of people in Britain?!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/hs2-budget-rail-study
" to top it all off hacking into their telecom companies and eavesdropping on Commissioners...- do the other member states really want to have to deal with these people?"
Well at least we won't be surprised if they don't..
One of the best things about birthdays and Christmas.
I refuse to give my missus any clues, which winds her up even more. It's great isn't it.
One of the best things about birthdays and Christmas.
I tried that the first year we were married - she put me in a fore arm lock until I told her.
The following year, 'teasing' was off the agenda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25473150
Incidentally, I think that the oil thing is a bit of a red herring, but I can understand why many, especially non-Scots, latch on to it as it is an extremely easy concept to comprehend. Much more difficult to grasp is the evolution of Scottish society and culture during the 2nd half of the 20th century. As that is a huge topic, requiring extensive research and familiarity with the many issues, it is usually glossed over by political debaters.
"the policy section on Labour's website"
avail 8/5/15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26qnQNOGDjY
They may not want to answer, but it is a reasonable question.
The following year, 'teasing' was off the agenda.
She always wants to open presents early - they're like catnip to her. She has yet to resort to a fore arm lock. I'd better make sure she doesn't read this thread ... ;-)
What is it about wives and presents. Mine even gets upset when I don't ask her about mine. It's a present, it can wait until Christmas.
This is the pool I am fishing in.It largely consists of the over 60s,white working/middle class males.I am finding lots of support for the 1983 Labour manifesto but no volunteers for diversity/equality training.
Merry Christmas-one of the reasons I do like this site,apart from the gambling,is it often reminds me of an acute psychiatric ward I used to attempt to run in the 80s.
Excellent!
Incredible but true.
Lab 1/2 (Ladbrokes)
Con 2/1 (PP, Lad)
UKIP 80/1 (PP)
LD 100/1 (Lad)
Could that 80/1 represent reasonable value for UKIP? The reason I ask is that Shadsy prices them at just 33/1, and Shadsy ain't no fool.
I hang out on message boards that discuss the intricacies of Christian text adaptations, screen writing/who's good and who isn't and fight scene choreography et al. It's much more interesting and I've learned a lot that's just as nerdy [don't get me started on the how to kill or identity 40 different sorts of demons or angelic hierarchy] and can get a bit partisan, but rarely unpleasant.
I pop in maybe once a day for a look and to leave the odd comment. I spend more time over at The Times which has some great and very well informed posters.
If you are Daniel Levy, do you not then take a long hard look at Malky?
He's 39-1 at Betfair or 33-1 elsewhere for the next Spurs manager.
What price do you want to give on UKIP winning or coming 2nd in Hornchurch and Upminster?
What price are you offering for UKIP winning the seat?
I think you're being a little touchy here. "Briton" is defined as "a native or inhabitant of Great Britain, or a person of British descent." I assume your wife lives in GB?
The only reason for reading something else into it would be by knowing the person and the tone of voice they used.
On a personal note, I like it very much that the SNP's long term policy is close to the sensible thing to do with oil - shift to saving it for petrochemical feedstock and specialist transport fuel, and use renewable instead for bulk energy (I believe renewable is already 40% or so of Scottish energy needs this week, and we haven't even started on tidal beyond R&D: anyone who has sailed through Coirebhreacan or Dorus Mor at the right time of the tidal cycle has no doubt about the power involved).
And as for Labour, I wonder how much of an impact it has on their prospects to the extent that they are seen as having managed to get the only Scottish petrochemical plant very nearly closed for good as collateral damage from their local problems at Falkirk (the pros and cons of the latter being a separate issue which I won't go into here).
I don't see every immigration issue through such a prism: if you look back at my posts over the last couple of days, you can see where I have posted about problems caused by mass immigration, including to the home countries of immigrants, and on local services in this country.
As a genuine question, when did you last make a comment on here praising immigration and immigrants?
And I have not mentioned racism anywhere in my posts.
http://www.wealthynation.org/
Speaking of incredibly well-written articles looking ahead to the 2014 F1 season, please do check out mine:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-look-ahead-to-2014.html
It's not especially in-depth but it does cover the many areas of change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25448738
I'm on a roll, .... Saints to win tomorrow then....
(shakes head and mutters).
Is the EZ crisis even properly over yet, or have the cracks just been papered over at great expense? It seems Ireland is becoming healthier, but what about the other PIIGS?
AVB coming back?
You said the thought of "power to affect the daily lives of Britons" was "truly chilling" then kept asking what the guy meant by "Britons"
Blatantly obvious you were trying to frame him as a racist, or an extremist, the least you could do is admit it.
If not what was so "chilling" about him saying it?
Left orientated posters have quite correctly made the point that when the tories talk about immigration, that drives their supporters towards UKIP.
Trouble is, that is now true for the other parties too. In 2014 all the main parties will have to talk about immigration. Big time.
I suppose you could argue that Bulgaria/Romania may be worse in the imagination than in reality, and that UKIP are peaking ahead of 2014.
I'm not sure that's true.
It came across to me as a chilling way of putting it. Re-reading the entire post, it still seems an odd way of expressing his point. You obviously differ. Given that it had that effect on me, it seems reasonable to ask him what he meant.
As for fart-arsing around: isn't that what we all do on PB?
It seems that UKIP are vying with the SNP for the positron of most touchy and easy to offend political party.
;-)