politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why Eddie Mair should be first choice to replace Paxo

CarlottaVance said:

George Eaton:

Labour's bombardment of the Lib Dems shows it is going all out for a majority
Rather than preparing for another hung parliament, Labour is focused on "crushing" Clegg's party.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/05/labours-bombardment-lib-dems-shows-it-going-all-out-majority

This parliament is an excellent opportunity for both Labour and the Conservatives to target the LDs and attempt to remove an opponent from future contests.

DavidL said:

I am beginning to seriously wonder if the EU actually wants the UK to remain as members. They are certainly testing the relationship to destruction: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/10810978/UK-anger-over-secret-EU-financial-transaction-tax-plan.html

If they want a tory party that is even largely committed to campaigning for "in" ticking off Osborne in this way is a really bad move. The conspiracy theorist would of course assume that this is one of the "concessions" Dave is going to achieve in due course but you do have to wonder.

I think we should introduce our own FTT - French Tipple Tax. Anyone who drinks French wine anywhere in Europe should pay an amount "per sip".

Good for raising revenue. Good for health.

Not sure if posted before:

UKIP @UKIP

UKIP is delighted to announce that @RogerHelmerMEP has been selected as its candidate to fight the Newark by-election

Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 22s

Roger Helmer is UKIP's candidate for the Newark by-election http://guyfawk.es/RofKN0 "A brave choice"

isam said:

anotherDave said:

"...the political class is really only part of a bigger metropolitan class, which is as coherent and interconnected as any more traditionally understood establishment, and which includes the broadcast media, publishing, the academic world and so on. There is a remarkable convergence of views within these groups, who tend to hold the same prejudices and uphold the same orthodoxies, and they have essentially made London their own.

The truth is that, far from being individualistic and free-thinking, London's metropolitan elites are profoundly sheep-like, while retaining a view of the people "outside" as being unable to understand issues in the way they can"

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/whittles-london-may-14-metropolitan-sheep-peter-whittle-westminster

The type of people who think Russell Brand is "anti-establishment"

Russell Brand is an intellectually incoherent anti-business, anti-globalisation, anti-progress idiot.

The Paxman interview with him just demonstrates what a ridiculous lightweight he is.

malcolmg said:

Carnyx said:

TheWatcher said:

peter_from_putney said:

Why Eddie Mair should be first choice to replace Paxo

Good spot Mike, but does he have the all important left-leaning credentials?

Mair's a Scot. That should rule him out.

In what respect? Does he not speak clearly? Does he need subtitles or something?

Carnyx, you would be better asking a turnip the question, you would get a more sensible reply.

It did not seem a very funny joke whichever way one looked at it, so I genuinely wondered if he was being serious and if so what reasons could legitimately be adduced for such a statement even before a successful result in the referendum.

However, my reply did allow for some irony just in case - I have been known to point out the (then) 888 button to Londoner friends complaining the couldn't understand the peripatetic Glasgow philosopher Mr R. Nesbit.

This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.

In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.

It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.

Grandiose said:

Not sure if posted before:

UKIP @UKIP

UKIP is delighted to announce that @RogerHelmerMEP has been selected as its candidate to fight the Newark by-election

Guido Fawkes ‏@GuidoFawkes 22s

Roger Helmer is UKIP's candidate for the Newark by-election http://guyfawk.es/RofKN0 "A brave choice"

Oh lord, this going to be fiery.

taffys said:

This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.

In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.

It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.

IIRC, it applies to trade in all European companies, irrespective of where the transaction takes place. So, attempts to evade the tax by - say - trading shares of Vivendi in New York would not succeed.

However, I don't know how it deals with GDRs/ADRs (i.e. the underlying shares stay in the possession of a bank, but you trade a piece of paper that allows to take delivery of the underlying if you desire). History suggests that financial markets tend to find a way around regulation.

It is, of course, worth remembering that in the UK, we already have an FTT on transactions in UK shares, so this is a case of the EU imitating us.

Socrates said:

GIN1138 said:

Tykejohnno said:

GIN1138 said:

BobaFett said:

I see there has been a Labour surge* with Populus.

I'm surprised at how few posts there are on this - when we had a dead heat the other day you couldn't move for them!!!

I've missed it. Can you post numbers?

Populus ‏@PopulusPolls 33s

New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506

Thanks. MOE.

Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.

What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in ICM polls in the six months preceding the election?

History suggests that financial markets tend to find a way around regulation.

Generally by moving to another jurisdiction.

It isn't what the EU is doing that's annoying, we all expect that. Its the incredible girly wet flannel nature of our response, with UKIP pounding on the door.

Osborne should simply say that if there's a financial transaction tax, it will mean the UK can no longer afford payments to the EU, and will be suspending them as soon as its implemented.

Repeat: UKIP is pounding on the f8cking door. show some backbone.

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

GIN1138 said:

Tykejohnno said:

GIN1138 said:

BobaFett said:

I see there has been a Labour surge* with Populus.

I'm surprised at how few posts there are on this - when we had a dead heat the other day you couldn't move for them!!!

I've missed it. Can you post numbers?

Populus ‏@PopulusPolls 33s

New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506

Thanks. MOE.

Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.

What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?

An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.

An average of greater than 10% in the polls OR more than 10 existing MPs would cover it .

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

GIN1138 said:

Tykejohnno said:

GIN1138 said:

BobaFett said:

I see there has been a Labour surge* with Populus.

I'm surprised at how few posts there are on this - when we had a dead heat the other day you couldn't move for them!!!

I've missed it. Can you post numbers?

Populus ‏@PopulusPolls 33s

New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506

Thanks. MOE.

Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.

What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?

An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.

In danger of including the Greens as well on that basis. (Although a 5 way debate would be interesting...) (Also - what % would the SNP need to be on in Scotland to be above the 5% GB target :-) )

Socrates said:

An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.

I would say less than 40% of the first placed party, as that is quite an efficient way of allowing us to deal with an increasing multiplicity of parties.

It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.

If this is really true then Osborne isn't angry at all. He's being a f8cking useless little girl, as are all the tories. He should be threatening to f8cking nuke Paris.

Repeat again: UKIP is pounding on the door. The time for playing this game is long over.

You bring in an FTT, we stop paying for the CAP. We stop paying full stop. It should be said now. The government are far, far too weak.

I tend to agree with those who think selecting Helmer is a mistake for UKIP. At a GE election he would be a reasonable candidate but in the heat of a by election the chances of him going "off message" are high and he carries the risk of tainting the brand.

From the tories' point of view this is probably the first bit of good news re this by election so far. Another Diane James could have been a serious problem.

Lennon said:

Socrates said:

rcs1000 said:

Socrates said:

GIN1138 said:

Tykejohnno said:

GIN1138 said:

BobaFett said:

I see there has been a Labour surge* with Populus.

I'm surprised at how few posts there are on this - when we had a dead heat the other day you couldn't move for them!!!

I've missed it. Can you post numbers?

Populus ‏@PopulusPolls 33s

New Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1); Cons 33 (-1); LD 8 (-1); UKIP 14 (=); Oth 9 (+1) Tables http://popu.lu/s_140506

Thanks. MOE.

Lib Dems on eight points. I'm not really sure they should be included in the debates at that point.

What do you think the hurdle should be? Average of 15% in the polls of ICM in the six months preceding the election?

An average in double figures in the month before the debate would seem reasonable. Though maybe we should lower it to a 5% threshold to be nice to the Lib Dems.

In danger of including the Greens as well on that basis. (Although a 5 way debate would be interesting...) (Also - what % would the SNP need to be on in Scotland to be above the 5% GB target :-) )

If you are including the Lib Dems in a Euro debate then you need to include the Greens.

Emily Maitlis at 6-1 for me.The beeb are far too pale,male and stale.Can the other candidates beat this perceptive insight?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27224726

isam said:

Grandiose said:

TGOHF said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m

UKIP names Roger Helmer as its Newark by-election candidate. Remarkable choice given his toxic views.

What toxic views?

All of them but for example

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics 3m
BREAKING: UKIP select Roger Helmer to fight Newark byelection - has called homosexuality “abnormal and undesirable"

Also waded in on rape with all the clumsiness of a bull in a china shop: http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/

Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...

"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"

Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.

I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?

and on the subject of male,pale and stale,there is the selection of Roger Helmer as Ukip candidate.Perhaps,it's the moustache but it strikes me he should have starred in the Guns of Navarone opposite Gregory Peck.If that's charisma,you can keep it.

Socrates said:

DavidL said:

taffys said:

This would seem to be a good example of exactly that.

In the end there's nothing we can do to stop them If they want to f8ck their own economies by having a Financial transaction tax, that is up to them, whether we are in or out of the EU.

It won't apply to us, or to other EU countries who don't want to go into the thing.

Eh, yes it will. The idea, as I understand it, is that at the very least any French or German bank trading in London will have to account for the FTT to their country of origin and we would have the responsibility to collect it.

In reality London is dominant in financial services so we would be collecting a tax for the rest of Europe which would be a major disincentive to trade in London as opposed to New York (who don't trade quite as many dollars as London at the moment) or Singapore. We would be at risk of losing a major industry and a significant part of our tax base whilst other EU countries would be barely affected. It would be totally unacceptable and Osborne is right to be angry.

@rcs1000 Is this the case? Or would a London to Frankfurt trade be in the same situation as a New York to Frankfurt trade?

To be honest, the proposals are so badly drafted at present as to be basically unenforceable They are what a school boy would propose, if he wanted to appear 'tough on bankers and tough on the causes of bankers.'

They currently attempt to be extra-territorial, and don't appreciate there are important differences between asset classes, nor the importance of the role of market makers (who are exempt from stamp duty in the UK). They are confused as to what constitutes a derivative contract, and seem incapable of understanding the difference between the value of nominals, and the actual meaningful value of a contract. GDRs/ADRs are barely mentioned, even though a lot of trade in European shares goes through them.

The very incoherence of the proposals has tended to make most in the financial services industry fairly sanguine about them.

One of three things will happen:

1. All (secondary market) financials services related to the EU/Eurozone will be driven out of the continent and to either an independent UK or somewhere else.
2. The massive 'holes' in the proposals mean that we'll all be trading synthetic instruments, ensuring lots of Goldman Sachs bankers get bonuses for working their way around the rules.
3. The proposals will be substantially modified and/or withdrawn.

I suspect they are in increasing order of probability (10:25:65)...

Richard_Nabavi said:

On the FTT: It remains to be seen what actually transpires, but it's an interesting example of a case where it's not obvious if it's better to be In or Out.

If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court, and insist on there being no discrimination against non-Eurozone countries and/or those countries not using the 'Enhanced Cooperation' mechanism.

If we're Out, then we have zero say in the matter. Of course we can tell them to get stuffed as far as levying it in London is concerned, but we can't prevent them from banning EU-domiciled companies from using the London market if we refuse to play ball with them.

Note that, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA, we could potentially be vulnerable to the worst of all worlds - no say in the formulation of policy, but obliged to implement it.

If we're out of the EU, would this be something that would be covered by the WTO?

(I don't think anyone is suggesting leaving the EU, and joining the EEA. The IEA Brexit recommendation was to join the EFTA.)

Richard_Nabavi said:

On the FTT: It remains to be seen what actually transpires, but it's an interesting example of a case where it's not obvious if it's better to be In or Out.

If we're In, we can challenge it in the European Court, and insist on there being no discrimination against non-Eurozone countries and/or those countries not using the 'Enhanced Cooperation' mechanism.

If we're Out, then we have zero say in the matter. Of course we can tell them to get stuffed as far as levying it in London is concerned, but we can't prevent them from banning EU-domiciled companies from using the London market if we refuse to play ball with them.

Note that, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA, we could potentially be vulnerable to the worst of all worlds - no say in the formulation of policy, but obliged to implement it.

It is complicated but if we were genuinely "offshore" then we would have no obligation to account for the tax nor provide any information to support its collection from the host country. Of course the individual institutions would still have an obligation to account but I suspect they would all re-register subsidiaries in London (if they have not done that already).

In that scenario we would be in no different position than New York.

If we remain in the club we have to play by the club rules. These seem a little obscure in this case which is why Osborne is going on about extraterritoriality. What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.

I don't disagree with your general point about the EEA.

And first out of the gate:

http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/

What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.

I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.

I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?

TGOHF said:

Those that ploughed in when the b/e was announced thinking Farage wasn't chicken must be cursing their losses now ?

Not a loss yet. Drifting horses have been known to win...

taffys said:

What is indisputable is that we have vastly more at stake here than the rest of the EU put together and our concerns and interests are not being respected. This is a major issue and the government has to respond aggressively.

I'm I dyed in the wool tory, abut if a conservative government stands by and lets our financial services industry get shafted, even I will vote UKIP.

I simply do not understand why the tories aren't far, far more aggressive here. Is it their utterly europhile civil servants urging restraint?

I think the belief is that the FTT - as currently proposed - is simply not enforceable. Rightly or wrongly, I think the idea is that it will spend the best part of a decade being redrafted, by which point it will probably have been forgotten, or so narrowed in scope, that it has very little impact.

This is why the financial services press, the investment banks and the fund management community have been so quiet on the subject.

The selection of Helmer helps Labour most. He's a candidate who will take some votes off the Tories, but I can't see him taking votes from Labour in the way that (say) Diane James might have done.

Grandiose said:

isam said:

Grandiose said:

TGOHF said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m

UKIP names Roger Helmer as its Newark by-election candidate. Remarkable choice given his toxic views.

What toxic views?

All of them but for example

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics 3m
BREAKING: UKIP select Roger Helmer to fight Newark byelection - has called homosexuality “abnormal and undesirable"

Also waded in on rape with all the clumsiness of a bull in a china shop: http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/

Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...

"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"

Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.

I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?

If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.

But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.

Good afternoon, everyone.

On the choice: Neil would be best, by a mile. Sophie Raworth would also be rather good.

I was surprised some time ago when Nick Robinson stood in (not a Robinson fan generally) by how well he did. Much more chairing of discussion rather than scalp-hunting and self-importance.

Sounds like the Conservatives won't mind Helmer. Might contrast gay marriage with Helmer's utterances. However, that would help firm up the more socially conservative for UKIP.

The FTT is despicable, and clearly an attempt to raise taxes disproportionately from us (as it applies to us from one end even if we don't implement it). Do we have French farming taxes and German car taxes?

Leaving aside the generally disgraceful approach of the EU, there's an arguably even more significant problem with the tax: who's collecting, where's it going? Is it to be done by individual nation states, or is it the first step on a path to a Brussels Treasury?

Grandiose said:

CarlottaVance said:

And first out of the gate:

http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/

I linked to it below! isam replied.

Sorry, missed that!

In the death penalty he's probably got one badly thought through populist policy that Miliband won't copy......

Nigel Evans to be deselected?

"Nigel Evans, cleared by a jury of his peers and welcomed back into the Tory fold, now faces a battle to save his political career. As Guido revealed in the Sun on Sunday, Evans’ local Ribble Valley association has been ringing around Tory MPs asking their opinion on whether he should remain as the candidate for 2015. They harbour reservations about Evans continuing as their MP beyond the next election and want to gauge the “Westminster feeling”. "

http://order-order.com/2014/05/06/ribble-valley-tories-weigh-up-evans-re-selection/

Has Ed been listening to Ed?

It has been put to me that the right approach is Government intervention to protect the LSE from foreign ownership. I reject this argument. This would fly in the face of the traditions that have underpinned the City's success. A policy of protecting “national champions” would damage, not bolster the interests of London and the UK.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/2277.htm

Off-topic:

I wonder what one of our dear departed friends would have to say about this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27300312

I can't be sure, but Cameron would get it in the neck somehow.

Chris Patten resigns as head of BBC Trust. (He's 70 next week).

Patten standing down from BBC Trust following major heart surgery.

isam said:

Grandiose said:

isam said:

Grandiose said:

TGOHF said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m

UKIP names Roger Helmer as its Newark by-election candidate. Remarkable choice given his toxic views.

What toxic views?

All of them but for example

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics 3m
BREAKING: UKIP select Roger Helmer to fight Newark byelection - has called homosexuality “abnormal and undesirable"

Also waded in on rape with all the clumsiness of a bull in a china shop: http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/

Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...

"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"

Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.

I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?

If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.

But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.

It's at very best very clumsy by Helmer and at worst terrible, depending on some of the ambiguities, things like 'much lighter sentence'. And putting some blame on the victim for being raped is something of a sticking point.

For some offences abusing a position of trust would be considered to make the offence worse.

A little bit of political trivia. One of the candidates for the Morley South ward on Leeds City council is called Bluebell New Jerusalem Eikonoklastes. Now which party would that be do you think? That's right - the Green Party.

Ukip have selected the obvious candidate. It would have been much more fun if they'd gone for Lizzie Vaid and she was elected.

Ukip - the only party with 100% ethnic and female representation.

They're decided to be serious instead. A chance missed.

No wonder Lenny Henry and UKIP aren't soul mates.

http://www.thedrum.com/stuff/2014/05/05/you-kip-premier-inn-ad-featuring-lenny-henry-goes-viral

Clever marketing. What would @Roger think of the slogan?

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

Helmer:

I’d happily hang the murderer (I’m part of that retrograde majority which still believes in the death penalty

What's UKIP policy on the death penalty?

Reintroduction I think !

Though I suspect a lot of UKIP would support that, their current website doesn't actually mention it either way despite having a variety of 'old fashioned' crime policies (longer sentences and so on). I can't find a copy of the 2010 manifesto but the BBC 'at a glance' summary of it from the time mentions various crime policies but not the death penalty.

Of course, we can't introduce capital punishment in peacetime while being a signatory of the ECHR. And we can't be a member of the EU without the ECHR.

Obviously UKIP would be changing the 'EU' bit ;')

And though it is not official party policy, many UKIP members support the return of capital punishment. A UKIP spokesman told me: ‘We think it’s a question that should be allowed to be raised, but we have no corporate position. It is free-vote territory. You couldn’t impose the whip in [a Commons vote on capital punishment].’

Chief among these supporters is UKIP deputy leader Paul Nuttall, UKIP MEP for the north-west of England. He wants the death penalty introduced for child murderers, serial killers and those who murder police officers. Nuttall stresses that it is UKIP’s policy to hold a referendum on controversial issues which gain the support of 5% of the population.

In 2011, Nuttall signed a petition on the Downing Street website launched by political blogger Guido Fawkes which had the aim of attracting the necessary 100,000 signatures to trigger a debate. As he pointed out at the time, a YouGov poll found that 62% of people would support the death penalty for child murder and 65% for serial murder.

That a majority of the electorate support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes appears indisputable. Opponents of capital punishment were relieved when the petition closed with just 26,000 signatures – a counter-petition got 33,000.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/bringing-back-the-death-penalty/70817.article

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

Grandiose said:

isam said:

Grandiose said:

TGOHF said:

MikeK said:

isam said:

George Eaton ‏@georgeeaton 1m

UKIP names Roger Helmer as its Newark by-election candidate. Remarkable choice given his toxic views.

What toxic views?

All of them but for example

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics 3m
BREAKING: UKIP select Roger Helmer to fight Newark byelection - has called homosexuality “abnormal and undesirable"

Also waded in on rape with all the clumsiness of a bull in a china shop: http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/ken-on-rape-badly-phrased-but-basically-right/

Was what he said there really so bad? Would anyone argue that one isn't much worse than the other? He said right at the off...

"In both cases an offence has been committed, and the perpetrators deserve to be convicted and punished"

Although would have to say that if a girl says "stop" you stop, end of. Don't want to get misunderstood.

I felt "clumsy" was appropriate. Consider "the victim surely shares a part of the responsibility, if only for establishing reasonable expectations in her boyfriend’s mind". At this point she's said "stop!", what reasonable expectation could one have? And if the boyfriend acts in line with this "reasonable expectation", are we expected to accept that in some sense his conduct was reasonable?

If I, as a straight bloke, went out for a drink with a gay guy that I knew fancied me, kissed him and got into bed with him back at his, I would feel a lot more responsible were I to get raped than if I had been walking down the street and jumped by a stranger.

But both would still be rape, and both should still be punished, and that's all Helmer said as far as I can see.

David Starkey almost got lynched for expressing a similar opinion on Question Time.

There's a raging cauldron of controversy around if people can be partially responsible without being morally culpable, or merely having acted inadvisedly without being responsible, or the victim is always entirely without fault. The final position tends to be held with quite stunning vehemence by the loudest part of the feminist community.