Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is what exactly does UKIP want?

13»

Comments

  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I've found some UKIP's policies http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for#3-rebuild-prosperity-and-keeping-the-lights-on. Can aanyone point me to the policy section on the Labour party website ( http://www.labour.org.uk/all-stories )

    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 ...
    Well apparently Boris thinks its going to cost £70 billion. So if the Mayor of London thinks that why shouldn't others? Are the Mayor of Londons maths not his strong point?

    HS2 'will cost over £70billion', says Boris Johnson
    The cost of the high speed 'HS2' railway line will cost nearly twice as much as the official estimate, according to Boris Johnson.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10165446/HS2-will-cost-over-70billion-says-Boris-Johnson.html

    Attacks on UKIP are so sloppy. Its no wonder people are turning to UKIP......
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    isam said:



    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.

    ;-)
    Oh look, I cant be doing with non stop arguing. You meant whatever you meant, only you know, lets leave it... not really my business anyway
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited December 2013
    Hills had an interesting offer on at half time - 3 or more goals in 2nd half at 3-1.

    Backed and laid off on Betfair at 3.333 (Under/Over 5.5 goals)
  • SeanT said:

    Recall it took the SNP three decades to go from political joke to political power.

    By my reckoning 1967 (Hamilton by-election) til 2007 is four decades, not three.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,348

    New site representing what might loosely be called conservatives for independence. Of course they may all be undercover SNPers...

    http://www.wealthynation.org/

    Ha! Peter de Vink, one of their leading lights, is a very long-standing Scottish Conservative activist who parted brass rags with them over indy and devolution (I forget precisely which). He's an independent (non sensu SNP) councillor on Midlothian Council, which has a quite separate SNP group. If he's a SNP activist then Alex Salmond and his pals are even longer-term strategic thinkers than I have for some time suspected.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Always up for an arb !

    Care must be taken with wording though.
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    edited December 2013
    How people that voted Lib Dem in 2010 split according totheir current polled opinions on parties, leaders and issues

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BcA68llCMAENtl3.png:large
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    @isam Any idea why Raceclear didn't advise the first race as an Each Way ?

    Wrong betting 'shape' ?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Pulpstar said:

    I've found some UKIP's policies http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for#3-rebuild-prosperity-and-keeping-the-lights-on. Can aanyone point me to the policy section on the Labour party website ( http://www.labour.org.uk/all-stories )

    Evidently maths is not UKIP's strong point, as they seem to think HS2 will cost £70 billion ...

    :-)
    What makes you think it will cost less JosiasJessop? I've seen calc's about HS2 which exceed £80 billion.. Really your pin-prick attacks on me personally are pathetic, but do go on ,it brings out your true personality.

    Hullo guys, I'm back and thanks for your support and defence of my person. And Huzza for all Britons.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,348

    SeanT said:

    Recall it took the SNP three decades to go from political joke to political power.

    By my reckoning 1967 (Hamilton by-election) til 2007 is four decades, not three.

    Quite. But surely power can also be exerted even if one is not the party which has the First Minister, or Prime Minister. The very existence of the 1997 referendum - 30 years on from Hamilton - is as much a testimony to the power 0r threat exerted by the SNP against the Labour hegemony. Just as the calling of an EU referendum will be a compliment, of sorts, to Mr Farage's power.
  • I don't think the site is in decline, it's just natural that big communities like this change over time. I probably read PB every day, on my mobile phone, so can never be arsed to post much!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited December 2013
    Millsy said:

    How people that voted Lib Dem in 2010 split according totheir current polled opinions on parties, leaders and issues

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BcA68llCMAENtl3.png:large

    Of course UKIP doesn't exist in this YouGov world!

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Bloody hell - South Africa 71-0 off 21 overs. Could they actually do it ?
  • New Thread
  • Hello Sean, and thanks for the words of commendation.

    Ref you comment "2020 could, therefore, be an even better opportunity for a battle-hardened political party of the populist right [if Labour win the next election], ... [as UKIP] will have had another half a decade to grow its membership and refine its policies."

    That's true, and indeed, I mentioned that deliberately targeting the Conservatives was a policy logically consistent with a medium-term game aimed at increasing opposition to the EU. However, it also relies on the Conservatives not stealing UKIP's thunder, either on the Europe question (which as Mike points out from time to time, is not of itself of great salience, though associated issues may be), or as a general opposition to the government.

    One reason that UKIP is doing so well is that Miliband is doing so badly. When Blair was riding high in the mid-90s, Others and the Lib Dems were not; his Labour Party simply swept up all the floating opposition votes. A Conservative Party in opposition under Boris, for example, may do something similar, even though Boris is instinctively pro-membership. It all really depends on how big an issue the EU is.

    However, at the moment, UKIP benefits from:
    - the government having to deal with the legacy of the worst recession in decades
    - a naturally centrist Tory leader
    - an uninspiring leader of the opposition
    - no third party opposition
    - an expansion of immigration from EU countries about to take place
    - the apparent failure of the biggest and most ambitious EU policy.

    Single issues may move more in UKIP's direction in the future but I'd be surprised if so many are so favourable again.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,348
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:

    Recall it took the SNP three decades to go from political joke to political power.

    By my reckoning 1967 (Hamilton by-election) til 2007 is four decades, not three.

    Indeed. It is in fact arguable that UKIP are doing BETTER than the SNP - i.e. making a speedier ascent to power. The party was founded in 1993, just two decades ago, and yet they are already a serious threat at the GE, one of the biggest British parties in Strasbourg, blah blah

    The SNP was founded in 1934 - so it actually took your guys eight decades to get into government.

    Of course UKIP might fall apart tomorrow, and return to 1% in the polls.
    I'm just wondering, how much of this, do you think, is because it took the Scots six decades to get a parliament where the option of voting for the SNP seemed eminently sensible (both in terms of national scope, and voting system)? I've always felt that a lot of Scots voted for anyone but the Tories at Westminster, since about 1980, and that always gave the parties who were there first an advantage (i.e. Labour and LD), even before one remembers FPTP. Hence the discrepancy between Westminser and Holyrood. But this difference in the polling for VI seems to be breaking down. Too early to say yet, but it could get very interesting.



  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471
    MikeK said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I've found some UKIP's policies http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for#3-rebuild-prosperity-and-keeping-the-lights-on. Can aanyone point me to the policy section on the Labour party website ( http://www.labour.org.uk/all-stories )

    Evidently maths is not UKIP's strong point, as they seem to think HS2 will cost £70 billion ...

    :-)
    What makes you think it will cost less JosiasJessop? I've seen calc's about HS2 which exceed £80 billion.. Really your pin-prick attacks on me personally are pathetic, but do go on ,it brings out your true personality.

    Hullo guys, I'm back and thanks for your support and defence of my person. And Huzza for all Britons.
    If you think I'm attacking you, then I'm sorry. I asked a question.

    As for my true personality: I will let others decide. "And would some Power the small gift give us
    To see ourselves as others see us!"

    The costs for HS2 as currently planned are to be £28 billion for both phases. On top of this is the cost of the actual trains, and a (to me excessive) £14 billion contingency.

    The £80 billion figure came from the IEA, and included a whole load of ancillaries, including the whole of the Crossrail 2 project. That is not a calculation: it is a travesty. Hopefully everyone can see why that is lunacy. The £73 billion came from a (I think) unnamed treasury source, and was denied.

    If you are against HS2, then you need to say what you will do to increase capacity on the network. And the piecemeal changes possible are also massively expensive, disruptive and will not provide enough capacity. There are plenty of reports out there to show this, as well as past experience with the WCML upgrade.

    I'm on record here as saying that I think the final bill will be in the £30-35 billion range for both phases, not including trains (at least I hope that's what I said!) Obviously dramatic alterations to the route and/or phasing alterations will change this.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    NEW THREAD!!!!!!!!!
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited December 2013

    Well, UKIP's EU strategy would be that if they can put enough pressure on the Tories they can actually move the next leader to BOO, or at least to a position that gives a referendum a fair shake - for example, that doesn't have a middle option that will then (as they and I see it, I know you don't) turn out to be bogus. That doesn't seem impossible - they've already got the Tories talking like they want to abandon really core, basic elements of the EU like free movement of people, which I don't think we'd have expected a few year ago, even when they were talking about repatriation.

    Correct and as you say it's working. There is one direction of travel for tory Euroscpticism and it sure ain't towards staying IN.

    Where I'd depart from the conventional strategy is that I don't think UKIP should be aiming for a referendum any more. Referendums are a strategy for people with a marginal case to move the ball up the pitch, and their case is no longer marginal. They should return to traditional British constitutional values (parliament decides) then try to get a majority between themselves and Con to leave the EU.

    UKIP want OUT. That's it. They would much rather it was just official tory policy but if they have to do it through a referendum then clearly they want a tory party that officially supports staying OUT rather than Cammie and an official leadership stance of wanting to stay IN.

    Farage knows perfectly well he isn't going to storm the commons with hundreds of MPs but if he keeps the pressure on then he not only continues to push fearful tory backbenchers towards OUT but the tory leadership as well. If not all the way under Cammie then then next leader will likely prove even more amenable. The more votes and sympathy the kippers garner from tory activists and the tory base the more certain they are of shaping tory policy. Farage also knows that if the tory party go to war over the EU again, and it starts to split and fracture over Europe, he's going to be there to pick up the pieces. The fact that Cameron is a second rate Blair impersonator has made certain that unhappy tory activists (swivel-eyed loons as the chumocracy would name them) are finding ever more policy positions where they agree with Farage and the kippers over Cameron's leadership. It used to be just about the EU, then EU and add immigration, then add climate change, then gay rights and so on and so on. That won't stop now. If Farage doesn't implode in a Robert Kilroy-Silk like manner then he gets to push the tory party as a whole ever further to his preferred policy positions or he just sits back and watches a tory leadership that tries to ignore them push ever more of it's own members and voters into his party which will just gain ever more traction as an alternative tory party the longer a Cameroon style leadership plays right into his hands.
  • GaiusGaius Posts: 227

    Pulpstar said:

    I've found some UKIP's policies http://www.ukip.org/issues/policy-pages/what-we-stand-for#3-rebuild-prosperity-and-keeping-the-lights-on. Can aanyone point me to the policy section on the Labour party website ( http://www.labour.org.uk/all-stories )

    Evidently maths is not UKIP's strong point, as they seem to think HS2 will cost £70 billion ...

    :-)
    What, you mean it will cost even more.

    No wonder ukip are against it.

This discussion has been closed.