Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A new month starts and UKIP’s support remains buoyant
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A new month starts and UKIP’s support remains buoyant
Another month starts and there’s no sign that support for UKIP is on the wane in spite of the much publicised blow at the party’s annual conference 11 days ago.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I am sure Mr. Senior knows.
The name of the policy would certainly seem to fit in with Ed's new positioning of his party.
Many of those who vote UKIP are motivated by either voting *against* the main three parties or are core anti-EU voters (but only about 2-3%). Godfrey Bloom is unlikely to make much impact on either group.
The high satire of your comedy spinning is of course unmatched, Seth O Logue.
Some might foolishly think it clunkingly obvious and simplistic variations on the laughably inept Dacre spin that little Ed is somehow an evil Stalin of our time, but you of course are sending up the idiots on here doing that, aren't you?
It wasn't even Heseltine. It was Farage and I don't think he was joking at the time.
Sweating? yes, joking? nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVnB7-QzOns
Low on policy, high on vision, leavened with attacks painting Ed and Labour as backward-looking.
Not his best delivery, but appeared to be aiming at statesman-like, rather than radical.
Personally, as an optimist and believer in effort in, reward out politics, I was pleased.
I think the softer end of the UKIP market will be impressed, if any of them saw it.
As always, most people will only see the bits replayed by the BBC and ITV News this evening, so let's see how they play it.
Could Shadsy offer us a bet on whether the BBC 6 O'Clock News will have more words from Nick Robinson than David Cameron?
"R4 picking up on the policy bit "everyone under 25 either earning or learning" - Robinson says this might extend to withdrawing all benefits from under 25s if they don't participate...."
Maggie did the same with claimants between 16 and 18. It did more social damage than any of her other innovations. You couldn't move for rent boys and 16 year old prostitutes in central London particularly railway stations. Shop doorways in the West End became filled with young people living in cardboard boxes and shop and begging became endemic.
'Shelter' warned that this would happen but Maggie knew best
The conference season is over and you haven't commented once on whether Justine or Sam had the nicer outfit. If Fashionista Mick doesn't give us the lowdown on what's hot, who will ?
What a silly old fool, the Cons should look to ease him into retirement
One thing he gets right. At the end, he seemingly unknowingly confirms what Powell predicted would happen to have happened.
http://www.bootshopuk.com/jcb-hollington-coveralls?gclid=CMfg45Cf-LkCFU3LtAod2VYAqw
You can see from those figures why the bedroom tax was framed to hit the disabled rather than grannies can't you.
As a Father may be a staggering hypocrite regarding people caring for disabled relatives- with no intention of dealing with the real housing issues, but he's not stupid.
tim
1. Pensioner life expectancy provides liquidity in the social housing market. A seventy five year old granny is not going to hold on to her council house for as long as a forty year single mum whose brood have fled the nest.
2. Playing the disabled carer card to justify taxpayers subsidising under utilisation of housing stock in a oversubscribed market is populist deception. The disabled are the exceptions not the rule and are catered for by special funding.
3. Private sector housing is built to demand. Housing construction under the Coalition government is far higher as a proportion of current demand than ever achieved under Labour and there is sufficient supply side capacity to meet rising demand up to around 240,000 units per year. There is nothing Miliband can or will do to improve the current position.
4. The complex problem to solve is the need for substantial new stock of low cost social housing. Neither you not Miliband have set out clear policies in this area allowing a vague "we will build 200,000 dwellings per year" promise to avoid addressing the problem.
As you and Ed know well the 200k total will be achieved by the private sector as the economy recovers. It requires no new policy, government support or funding over and above what is already being offered.
But it won't answer the need for new social housing for which the former business model (government borrowing) is flawed. Council houses are not being built because they do not return the costs of investment. Hence, they need substantial government borrowing/subsidy. Avoiding such cost was the reason why Labour built no more than 6,000 council houses in 14 years of government and why housing association builds never exceeded 15% of private sector completions.
So what you need to set out is the new business model and costs of building substantial new new social housing units.
I am all ears.
If I had been David Cameron, my dismissal of Ed Miliband would have been summed up in a single sentence "the problem is not that you're Red Ed: the problem is that you're Wrong Ed". He should not be positioning this as Right vs Left, but as Right vs Wrong.
At the end David Cameron’s audience rose to acknowledge him, but the applause was largely lost amid the rafters of the cavernous Manchester Central Hall. It didn’t really matter. He had held his nerve. So had his party."
Yup. I came away from that speech just thinking - good solid stuff, the Autumn Statement is next and that's just a month away.
LOL
As for Dacre himself, as predicted he's going nowhere just yet. Also unsurprisingly his inept yes-man and deputy Steafel looks to have been passed over for Rothermere's affections by the MoS Editor Greig who is now very well placed to replace Dacre when the time comes.
Who will be most pleased with conference season?
I know who will be least pleased and that's the LibDems, who have been pushed into irrelevance.
For Farage, it's a step forward in being taken seriously, but a step back in terms of party image.
Ed has made a bold pitch and will most likely be rewarded by MORI and its certainty to vote filter, but short termism won't cut it at the next election; lots of hard work on a credible programme for government is needed. He will, though, be pleased that he has gained respect as a serious politician.
Cameron will be most pleased, I think, because he has been able to play the tough statesman, whose decisions are beginning to pay off and who can pitch for votes on 'finishing the job'. He's also forced Ed into revealing some of his hand and, with the help of the media, can now paint him as risky, a throwback and a chancer.
The conference season is over and you haven't commented once on whether Justine or Sam had the nicer outfit. If Fashionista Mick doesn't give us the lowdown on what's hot, who will ?
Was Cammie's speech that bad it drove you to drink? True, it was dull, had no policies and was completely forgettable but he is a second rate Blair impersonator after all, so why should that be a surprise?
Maybe another senior tory (aside from Cameron) calling UKIP a racist party is more likely to have sent you to the bottle? Chin up! Maybe the kippers love that sort of thing. Or maybe not.
"Dan Hodges in the Telegraph - Cameron looked into the cameras and said: we've won the economic argument. And it was convincing"
I heard Rod Liddle on the radio earlier and I wondered what turned good left wing journalists into right wing ones almost overnight?
Was it because they got rich as their London houses soared in value so they saw things from the other side of the fence? No I'm afraid the answer is much more prosaic than that.
The newspapers that pay the big bucks are all right wing so to keep their dosh rolling in there's only one thing to do......
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/camerons-speech-shows-he-wants-a-re-run-of-1992/
I'm not sure, however, that "Heir to Major" has a ring about it.
The activists have local and EU elections to fight soon enough so now is the time to get them and the party fired up or at the very least happier than they were.
EdM necessarily more animated, big ideas, we'll do this, do that, start this, stop that, and then..and then..and then.. Quite tiring in every sense. Luckily given a post-conference boost by the imbeciles at Daily Mail but much as he and most sentient beings were rightly aggrieved, he should now back off while he is at the height of his goodwill (200 new labour members seems about right).
Cam more of a statesman, redolent of a bygone, surer age. He could have been making the broadcast in 1953 with families huddled round the wireless. No fireworks, no "he said _what?!"s. A couple of things to clear up - including the learn or earn thing but otherwise he oozed a you-can-trust-us confidence and, luckily, he has the economic figures which back him.
Net net? Lab 37 Con 34 LD 10 UKIP 10
"...3. Classic Leftist diversionary tactics. Make an incredible amount of noise about something that's really not that important to people, and we'll ("we" = "voters") re-affirm our association between Labour and Good, while forgetting their role in the mess the country was in by 2010, the economic and cultural wasteland which they bequeathed. "OK they bolloxed up the economy, and deliberately engineered levels of immigration unknown in British history, and don't let's mention the war(s) … but they're the good guys. I liked that Tony Blair."
Here's John Mann, some Labour MP or other, making my point on Twitter:
-Cameron announced new work on holocaust education. He and Dacre of the Mail clearly need it first-
The Mail runs an article, and a Labour MP attempts to associate the Prime Minister with the Holocaust? What a disgusting little Mann." http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/graemearcher/100239168/the-mail-attacks-ralph-miliband-so-a-labour-mp-smears-cameron-with-the-holocaust-this-fake-outrage-is-sick/
"EdM is a very different personality from Neil Kinnock."
It's early days but I think Mike might have been more correct about Ed than the rest of us. He definitely seems to be metamorphosing from a ten stone weakling into Superman.
EDIT: But I missed the start of the speech. Did he have a bit on Syria or something I missed?
*chortle*
'http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2441291/Arrogance-jobless-Kent-mother-27k-year-benefits-believes-working-mugs-game.html'
Cameron is saying: "Give me five more years to sort out Labour's mess and I'll give you the good times."
Major was saying:"Give me four more years. We've sorted out Labour's mess, now I need a term to sort out Maggie's mess before Labour get to enjoy the good times."
"I watched the whole thing and i am wandering around like a zombie possessed. It's the Tory bromides - wall-to-wall throughout the speech. For a moment I thought he was computer-generated. But maybe I was nodding off.
"From time to time Cameron's face would darken and he would lob insults at the opposition. Not witty, not funny - using expressions like 'you lot' - derogatory and brimming with contempt. And in the same breath, talking about equality and opportunity. The subtext for me read, equality and opportunity for the Tory set and damn the rest.
"My guess is it's a speech aimed at young couples with 2.5 children who are hankering to buy a whacking great ghastly brown executive home in a provincial English town ... judging by the up-and-coming young Tories in the crowd, they are largely very straight, dull, pince-nez types with no sense of fun and no sense of irreverance that makes England great.
"I think Cameron is concerned especially about those borderline Tories - Thatcher's children, young couples who don't live in London but have high hopes for themselves and their children, self-obsessed, out for themselves, without any social idealism to speak of. They've read Steve Jobs, not George Orwell. Notice there was no talk about pensions or care homes, which were big news stories this past year - with shocking reports of neglect and abuse. These Tories couldn't give a toss about people as they get older - and poorer - and figure they get what they deserve.
"For now, they just want their children to get into the best schools and drive their own Jaguars. Sigh. Personally I think Cameron's concerned about securing younger Tory voters - having the older ones in the bag. Of course he doesn't want to lose any of the older, grouchier ones leaning towards UKIP, but now they are trying to say that voting for UKIP is a vote for Labour (Heseltine).
"I have the feeling that Cameron didn't win over anyone and the speech didn't change much. He is is sort of holding the fort defensively with this party speech. As for Sam Cam's child-like clasping of Cameron's hand, practically swinging it like a child in Mary Janes, her gormless smile holding the crowd of Tories in rapture - oh well. Personally, I prefer Hannah Arendt, but that's me.
"From a betting point of view .... I think Cameron's speech won't make any waves and won't be game-changing at all."
Fairy nuff?
It is the accumulation and repetition of near misses which will depress the vote share.
Although I did note a recent Canterbury win, so Kent appears still to be receptive to the kipper cause.
If I was advising the Tories, I'd recommend no freebies and no direct response [to Ed's energy gimmick]. Labour are (sensibly enough) trying to move the debate away from the deficit, the cuts and the mess they left - a debate they've lost - on to different ground where they can make populist gestures (although as I said last night, why the hell couldn't they find something less damaging to make a populist gesture on?). This is best ignored IMO, except to use it as further evidence that Labour are nowhere near being a serious party of government again. The Conservatives should keep the debate firmly on the ground where they have a big advantage. So, my response would be to emphasise that the tough choices are working, the job is not yet finished, and 'Don't let them wreck it again'.
The last thing they should do is get into a competition of give-aways.
RichardNabavi, September 26
Dave delivering dull, uninspiring speech= Triumph for Cameron!
Miliband has, if anything, underperformed his already low bar.
So you expected little Ed to bomb hopelessly in the summer and then grab the initiative back and put Cammie on the defensive culminating with the amusing sight of Cameron backing little Ed by agreeing with him on decrying Dacre and his moronic smearing.
Your predictive powers are indeed awe inspiring.
Link?
Another policy that could hurt the tories if this isn't worked out properly.
David Cameron suggests cutting benefits for under-25s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24369514
I'd be surprised if she had the faintest idea about the Spare Room Subsidy.
How about Labour introduce legislation that halves the price that all houses are sold for.
Think that will work too?
A risk that was largely created when Labour were in power, and Ed Miliband increased when he was at DECC.
So it's all going to boil down to trust.
And yet in your previous post you state -
'She knows that government policy...'
Which is it?
twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/385321733559189505
For The Rothermere's. Your man came so close
http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/H/Adolf-Hitler-9340144-2-402.jpg
twitter.com/UKIP/status/382961966861807616
However, the Mail's idiocy has been a distraction from the conference - few Tories will be happy with that.
The caravan moves on...next 'big one' is 3Q later this month (I think) and an 'interesting' Autumn Statement. That's when more (small) shifts in opinion might be expected....
Queue more spamming from Dr. P.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-24372224
The people cited as doing the taking are many and varied. Big companies, energy firms, railway networks, senior civil servants, Bankers, benefit cheats, charity bosses, Union leaders, politicians of all stripes, estate agents, the EU, councils, the beneficiaries of foreign aid, the tax man, oil companies and many more.
There's a big electoral dividend for anybody who can squeeze the above.
"Marine Le Pen remains, among an imperfect choice in urgent times, the only candidate capable of saving France’s control over her finances, borders, and identity."
Another conference goes by with no overarching vision other than a few stupid bribes.
He's not making a serious pitch to run the country - and his time is running out.
The last remnant of British Rail came to an end a few days ago, with the abolition of BRB (Residuary). BRB was the body that held all the remaining non-privatised elements of the old British Rail Board, including a fair amount of land.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brb-residuary-ltd-has-been-abolished
Nabavi also seems to think that the tories wanted and expected the conference season to go like this after Ed's hopeless summer. Good luck getting anyone to believe that laughable spin.
But the truth of the matter is that Abramovich, like almost all the Russian oligarchs, made their money very simply as a result of the imposition of price controls on the Soviet Union's petrochemical, metals and mineral extraction industries.
Seventy years of socialist central planning had led to fuel, energy and home produced commodities being priced by central diktat from Moscow without any reference to global market prices or the true costs of production.
Price controls were coupled with currency controls. The Ruble was not convertible and its value was officially fixed at parity with the US Dollar. Unofficially, however, one US Dollar bought around 100 Rubles.
Now because the price controls and currency exchange controls resulted in wholly artificial domestic and international prices, the link with investment returns was lost. In fact all investment was done on a centrally planned basis with little regard for conventional returns. Funds did not follow opportunities, which meant there was under-investment in production, low capacity utilisation and horrificly low productivity.
[to be continued ...]