politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The minor parties – A quiet consolidation?

Mr. kle4, it's my job to fantasise about incredible things that have no relation to reality

Mr. Quincel, perhaps you're right. Perhaps it'll also depend on how the percentages stack up.

It may also have an impact on the Scottish referendum.

Mr. Isam, one feels the time is appropriate to remind the site that one coined the phrase 'UKIPalypse' [ which was shamelessly stolen by a well-known Cornish thriller writer for his newspaper blog, I might add ].

isam said:

Quincel said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Quincel, Miliband failing to win could be contrasted with the Conservatives achieving that in the corresponding period last Parliament, and the European Elections are both 'home turf' for UKIP *and* a low-risk way to kick the big parties.

I'd be surprised if almost any of the news coverage the day afterwards spends much time comparing results to the 2009 election. The man on the street doesn't care what happened 5 years ago in contexts like this, and frankly if they do then Labour have moved from 3rd to 2nd whilst the Tories have 'crashed' from 1st to 3rd. Again, one story is much easier to write.

If UKIP win the Euros I'd like to be a buyer of the phrase "political earthquake" in the following days papers

Sounds like a market for spreadbetting.

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

Charles said:

But the university education funding in England is bolloxed up. Too many people do useless courses - I'd rather see them charged more, with STEM students charged less and the whole thing funded to make it needs blind

bolloxed by 4quits like David Willets who studied PPE at Oxford. Why do we fund these useless degrees ?

It's not PPE per se, but the fact that no one in our political class was brave enough to stand up to the vested interests in the universities and the harsh realities that a university education will not generate an economic return for 50% of the population.

The ideal situation would be independent universities, sent out with a generous dowry from the government so they could start needs blind. The government could then choose to subsidise those courses where there are positive externalities for society as a whole. And that probably doesn't include PPE ;-)

I think that's part of it, but as Mr JJ points out we need to ditch the snobbery that vocational courses are somehow not up to much; as a country we need more hands on courses like the old polytehcnics used to do rather than worry so much about "academia" per se. More attention also needs to be given to making crossing between vocational and academia easier and perhaps even desirable.

Absolutely - it's just the character limit that stopped me laying out an entire reconstruction of UK education policy on the thread...

It's immoral of government to encourage people to who aren't suited to academia to waste 3 years and run up '000s in debt. Vocational courses would be very suitable for a large number of people - arguably one of the worst mistakes of recent governments was Major (?) abolishing the polys* even thought it was only really a nominal distinction by then.

* decleration: we had a hereditary seat on the council of London Poly - kindly the University of Westminster has preserved it.

AndyJS said:

Apologies if already posted earlier:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10791249/LibDems-told-to-expect-to-lose-all-MEPs-in-Euro-elections-bloodbath.html

"LibDems told to expect to lose all MEPs in Euro elections 'bloodbath'

Senior Liberal Democrats have privately been warned that the party could be left with no MEPs after next month’s European Parliament elections, The Daily Telegraph can disclose"

So they can manage their expectations appropriately?

Danny565 said:

AndyJS said:

Apologies if already posted earlier:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10791249/LibDems-told-to-expect-to-lose-all-MEPs-in-Euro-elections-bloodbath.html

"LibDems told to expect to lose all MEPs in Euro elections 'bloodbath'

Senior Liberal Democrats have privately been warned that the party could be left with no MEPs after next month’s European Parliament elections, The Daily Telegraph can disclose"

I am still patiently waiting for a thread discussing the prospect of the Greens beating them.

I think the Greens could certainly do it. It depends on whether a lot of Green supporters vote for Labour, which they often do in order to beat the Tories.

Interesting and thoughtful article by Corporeal - thanks.

One aspect which we have hardly touched on (although Nick Palmer pointed to it in a post a few days ago) is the effect of there being a large choice of parties on the ballot papers in the European elections, not all of whom are obviously bonkers. This, combined with the fact that voters tend to regard the Euros as a bit of a joke election, probably explains why 'Other others' have tended to get a much larger vote share than they do in general elections.

It may well be that the same effect will occur this time around, so that the vote share of minor parties again substantially exceeds that suggested by the opinions polls - i.e. that, when it actually comes to vote, we'll see a chunk of the non-LibLabCon (™ Kippers) support drifting off to the Pirates, English Democrats, sundry UKIP splittists, the BNP, and indeed the Greens.

Alternatively, it may be that UKIP will hoover up these protest votes, breaking the pattern of the last few elections.

Unfortunately, as Corporeal says, we don't really have enough good-quality polling data from previous elections to judge whether opinion polls systematically underestimate 'Other others'. My gut feel is that we will see a higher proportion of 'Other others' than the polls currently suggest, but perhaps not as much as usual.

Danny565 said:

AndyJS said:

Apologies if already posted earlier:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10791249/LibDems-told-to-expect-to-lose-all-MEPs-in-Euro-elections-bloodbath.html

"LibDems told to expect to lose all MEPs in Euro elections 'bloodbath'

Senior Liberal Democrats have privately been warned that the party could be left with no MEPs after next month’s European Parliament elections, The Daily Telegraph can disclose"

I am still patiently waiting for a thread discussing the prospect of the Greens beating them.

Eh, I've glanced around at it but hard to find much of an angle, especially with the Greens bouncing around so much.

Wow the Mirror have quite a front page...

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themselves at every opportunity to smear UKIP, frame things that were obviously not racist as being so, carry on about Farage's EU allowance etc etc, these two stories would have made a far greater impact, and possibly caused great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Since the Mirror had a front page splash a couple of months ago about the imminent arrest of a former Cabinet minister that so far hasn't happened, I don't place too much credence in its latest story as yet.

Sunder Katwala ‏@sundersays 15m

Times p1 "Labour's core vote hit hard by Ukip" from Lord Glasman interview; says Lab is too middle class @suttonnick pic.twitter.com/S6JYrnb6fQ

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themselves at every opportunity to smear UKIP, frame things that were obviously not racist as being so, carry on about Farage's EU allowance etc etc, these two stories would have made a far greater impact, and possibly caused great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themselves at every opportunity to smear UKIP, frame things that were obviously not racist as being so, carry on about Farage's EU allowance etc etc, these two stories would have made a far greater impact, and possibly caused great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

Quite so. Occasionally you'll get a major game changer, but for the rest of the political environment and narrative, lots of thing add up over time until, sometimes without even knowing exactly when, things are different.

I recall quite well how a drip feed of stories on this government convinced me of its incompetence a couple years back, and that colours my view of everything they do now as a result, making me more sceptical of the good stories being their fault. In another example. UKIP's surge has not been the result of them suddenly finding the right thing to say or Farage exploding in popularity - he's been pretty popular and prominent for quite some time, and many of the things UKIP espouse they have done so for a very long time. But major changes in other parties and the European economy, and little changes to how people felt about considering UKIP, has altered little by little to the point that they made a genuine perception breakthrough to being a major party, or at least significant to the point of a four party system.

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themselves at every opportunity to smear UKIP, frame things that were obviously not racist as being so, carry on about Farage's EU allowance etc etc, these two stories would have made a far greater impact, and possibly caused great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themselves at every opportunity to smear UKIP, frame things that were obviously not racist as being so, carry on about Farage's EU allowance etc etc, these two stories would have made a far greater impact, and possibly caused great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

Quite frankly I don't know how people manage to maintain so much intensity with drama and hyperbole. One reason I'm a fence sitter is I just cannot muster up the energy to be so passionately partisan about most topics (some animate me enough, it is true), and I could never stand for or likely be a proper member of a political party in any prominent way, because I just would not be able to sustain genuine or insincere passion and belief in one particular view or party.

I sort of admire people who can do so, but I also find it a little unsettling, so removed is it from my own base position.

Perhaps one day I can become a master of the hyperbolic arts. One day.

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themselves at every opportunity to smear UKIP, frame things that were obviously not racist as being so, carry on about Farage's EU allowance etc etc, these two stories would have made a far greater impact, and possibly caused great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

You are trying to be too clever for your own good

EDIT

Actually, I may being too argumentative for my own good.

Is what you are saying that the constant smears and false accusations from the press, bloggers etc have dripped into the public consciousness so much that they now don't believe or don't take notice of it when UKIP do mess up?

If so, I agree, and apologise for being snappy

More likely the public haven't noticed almost any of the stories. Guido Fawkes may be widely read in the PB world, but the average voter hasn't even heard of him. Most people don't read the papers, most people don't discuss 'current affairs'. Not because most people are stupid or anything else, but because most people don't follow any particular world. A constant stream of tennis stories wouldn't impact the public conciousness, because other than around Wimbledon the public just don't pay attention. That's what politics and elections is like.

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

I believe that had the media and other parties not been tripping over themsel great damage.

But they couldn't help themselves, and now the public seem to be unaffected by it all

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*
ittle impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

Actually, I may being too argumentative for my own good.

Is what you are saying that the constant smears and false accusations from the press, bloggers etc have dripped into the public consciousness so much that they now don't believe or don't take notice of it when UKIP do mess up?

While I cannot speak for corporeal, I would say that the constant stories (true or not) is having little impact at the moment because of the state of the other parties and strength of feeling about EU issues like immigration dimming their impact because of the level of support for UKIP in opposition to those things, although a constant drip feed of stories will eventually have an impact.

The more of those stories which are untrue, or require a contrived interpretation to be not only negative but offensive, the better for UKIP, which could well lead to genuine stories not being believed or noticed and a delay in the perception of UKIP changing, or if it ever changes.

It's one reason I couldn't be sure how well the Yes side were doing in Scotland until the recent polling marked a decisive shift (though i have always thought they would rally and win) because no matter the previous ups and downs of polling slightly, and no matter the story, it was also portrayed by some as positive for the Yes side in some way, so I had no way of assessing to what extent that was true, as simple chance would suggest not everything can have gone well for them.

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

You are trying to be too clever for your own good

EDIT

Actually, I may being too argumentative for my own good.

Is what you are saying that the constant smears and false accusations from the press, bloggers etc have dripped into the public consciousness so much that they now don't believe or don't take notice of it when UKIP do mess up?

If so, I agree, and apologise for being snappy

No.

Firstly what I'm saying is this specific story didn't have legs. I mean what's day 2 of it? Day 4? For a story to have a big impact it has to be able to sustain itself somehow and this one didn't have it.

Secondly, most people are low information voters. They don't pay massive amounts of attention to the day-to-day stuff and are fairly skeptical of anything. It's rare that one story is going to, on its own, significantly change their views. The ones that do are either going to be the big ones that run and run, or play into an existing history.

What really happens (imho) is that a story about a party is added to the pile of information people use to form a long term general impression of a party and so alters that impression in a very small way. Think a metaphor about the (political) weather eroding something into a shape, or perhaps background conversations in a noisy room. You hear the odd comment clearly, you get a sense of the general vibe (angry/happy/etc) but you don't pay enough attention get any details from the individual conversations.

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

You are trying to be too clever for your own good

EDIT

Actually, I may being too argumentative for my own good.

Is what you are saying that the constant smears and false accusations from the press, bloggers etc have dripped into the public consciousness so much that they now don't believe or don't take notice of it when UKIP do mess up?

If so, I agree, and apologise for being snappy

No.

Firstly what I'm saying is this specific story didn't have legs. I mean what's day 2 of it? Day 4? For a story to have a big impact it has to be able to sustain itself somehow and this one didn't have it.

Secondly, most people are low information voters. They don't pay massive amounts of attention to the day-to-day stuff and are fairly skeptical of anything. It's rare that one story is going to, on its own, significantly change their views. The ones that do are either going to be the big ones that run and run, or play into an existing history.

What really happens (imho) is that a story about a party is added to the pile of information people use to form a long term general impression of a party and so alters that impression in a very small way. Think a metaphor about the (political) weather eroding something into a shape, or perhaps background conversations in a noisy room. You hear the odd comment clearly, you get a sense of the general vibe (angry/happy/etc) but you don't pay enough attention get any details from the individual conversations.

You've lost me

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

If so, I agree, and apologise for being snappy

No.

Firstly what I'm saying is this specific story didn't have legs. I mean what's day 2 of it? Day 4? For a story to have a big impact it has to be able to sustain itself somehow and this one didn't have it.

Secondly, most people are low information voters. They don't pay massive amounts of attention to the day-to-day stuff and are fairly skeptical of anything. It's rare that one story is going to, on its own, significantly change their views. The ones that do are either going to be the big ones that run and run, or play into an existing history.

What really happens (imho) is that a story about a party is added to the pile of information people use to form a long term general impression of a party and so alters that impression in a very small way. Think a metaphor about the (political) weather eroding something into a shape, or perhaps background conversations in a noisy room. You hear the odd comment clearly, you get a sense of the general vibe (angry/happy/etc) but you don't pay enough attention get any details from the individual conversations.

You've lost me

Really? Which bit?

Useful BBC article from 1999 explaining the Euro voting system:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/91150.stm

You've lost me

Stories, positive or negative, need to be big, long-lasting, frequent or preferably all three, if they are to alter perceptions of a party among the 'generally not interest in politics' public, and the most likely stories to impact are the ones which already fit and enhance to the current perception.

UKIP are riding a high of positive feeling at the moment, bolstered by low opinons of the other parties (many people also have a low opinion of UKIP, but the big change has been the increase in those who view it positively), and the current lot of stories are not the kind that are powerful enough to alter that current perception of UKIP on their own.

Anyway, night all.

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

corporeal said:

isam said:

Regarding the UKIP controversies "Lenny Henry" and "The Rhodesian"

The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.

At the risk of drawing accusations of replying to all your posts, I disagree.

Those stories weren't going to be big impact stories, didn't have anywhere to go. Whatever impact they had was always going to be part of a drip-drip one.

Hahaha

*shrugs*

It's a general philosophy I've enumerated many times on PB here. People over-react to a story and expect a dramatic impact, then when it doesn't occur over-react to their own over-reaction. In reality political perception is shaped by a lot of little impacts over time.

zzzzzzzz

Dull possibly but with more truth to it than a daily rollercoaster ride of drama and hyperbole.

The media hatchet job has backfired and now nothing seems to stick

You see, I'm not sure if you're trying to rebut me here, or provide an excellent example of what I'm talking about.

If so, I agree, and apologise for being snappy

No.

Firstly what I'm saying is this specific story didn't have legs. I mean what's day 2 of it? Day 4? For a story to have a big impact it has to be able to sustain itself somehow and this one didn't have it.

Secondly, most people are low information voters. They don't pay massive amounts of attention to the day-to-day stuff and are fairly skeptical of anything. It's rare that one story is going to, on its own, significantly change their views. The ones that do are either going to be the big ones that run and run, or play into an existing history.

What really happens (imho) is that a story about a party is added to the pile of information people use to form a long term general impression of a party and so alters that impression in a very small way. Think a metaphor about the (political) weather eroding something into a shape, or perhaps background conversations in a noisy room. You hear the odd comment clearly, you get a sense of the general vibe (angry/happy/etc) but you don't pay enough attention get any details from the individual conversations.

You've lost me

Really? Which bit?

Forget about it

Richard_Nabavi said:

Interesting and thoughtful article by Corporeal - thanks.

One aspect which we have hardly touched on (although Nick Palmer pointed to it in a post a few days ago) is the effect of there being a large choice of parties on the ballot papers in the European elections, not all of whom are obviously bonkers. This, combined with the fact that voters tend to regard the Euros as a bit of a joke election, probably explains why 'Other others' have tended to get a much larger vote share than they do in general elections.

It may well be that the same effect will occur this time around, so that the vote share of minor parties again substantially exceeds that suggested by the opinions polls - i.e. that, when it actually comes to vote, we'll see a chunk of the non-LibLabCon (™ Kippers) support drifting off to the Pirates, English Democrats, sundry UKIP splittists, the BNP, and indeed the Greens.

Apart from the "hey, let's try this lot" syndrome, I think the Greens are doing moderately well, though not quite with the breakthrough they'd hoped for - they are picking up some of the "left of Labour" vote that the LibDems used to get. The general mood of disillusionment should help - there may be quite a few voters who don't want to vote for the classic mainstream parties but don't identify with UKIP's preoccupations.

The few hundred people we canvassed this weekend didn't show any remarkable trends in any direction, but interest in the Euros is picking up, with both UKIP supporters and people who actively dislike UKIP (not uncommon) quite keen. Perhaps I'll win my bet with DavidL on higher turnout.

I think the stories are creating a siege mentality for UKIP - Nothing works quite like nobody likes us and we don;'t care

Expensive, I'd have though if you live miles away from a dole office in a rural area.

Pulpstar said:

old_labour said:

It might also attract some back to Labour.

antifrank said:

The much more important front page is the Independent. It's odd that a hard-edged welfare story that the government will want to use as a wedge with Labour should break there, but it is evidently designed to attract the UKIP-curious back to the Conservatives.

Sign on every day ?

It sounds hard work to be unemployed these days !

old_labour said:

Here is a story for the football fans among you.

A David Moyes statue has been unveiled outside Anfield today.

The 11-foot bronze likeness has apparently been commissioned for, as the plinth reads, "services to Liverpool Football club".

The tongue in cheek monument is the work of cheeky bookmaker Paddy Power, and of course is in reference to Manchester United's poor season, coupled with the Reds likely title win.

"the Reds likely title win" ..... Really? I don't think so!

antifrank said:

Since the Mirror had a front page splash a couple of months ago about the imminent arrest of a former Cabinet minister that so far hasn't happened, I don't place too much credence in its latest story as yet.

A few days ago I stumbled by chance upon a rumour about a former Cabinet minister who was named by someone in a tweet on Twitter. Merely by Google-ing the person's name (without needing to search for "rumour" or "allegation") I quickly and easily found a load of bonkers conspiracy theories about the person (which were obviously rubbish) alongside the suggestion that an arrest was made a few months ago but that the name has not been announced yet.

old_labour said:

Expensive, I'd have though if you live miles away from a dole office in a rural area.

Pulpstar said:

old_labour said:

It might also attract some back to Labour.

antifrank said:

The much more important front page is the Independent. It's odd that a hard-edged welfare story that the government will want to use as a wedge with Labour should break there, but it is evidently designed to attract the UKIP-curious back to the Conservatives.

Sign on every day ?

It sounds hard work to be unemployed these days !

Wouldn't, I would have thought, give a lot of time to look for work, either. Must find out how it's going to operate in our area. Just for interest you understand, as a CAB trustee.

Thanks old_labour.

I ought to say that Andrew Teale's local election website has been very useful for checking information:

http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/