politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the pollsters are understating UKIP like at previous by-

Options
System
System Posts: 12,578
edited June 2014 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the pollsters are understating UKIP like at previous by-elections then Newark is absolutely neck and neck

Tomorrow afternoon Lord Ashcroft is publishing his poll for Thursday’s Newark by-election which will be the only the second survey that’s been carried in what’s turning out to be a humdinger of a fight between UKIP and the Tories. Both have got historical baggage that a win could help them shed.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    UKIP FIRST in Newark ?
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    OTOH in this case presumably the polling is coming from during or right after the Euros, in which case UKIP come pre-hyped rather than suddenly getting a lot of coverage in the last week when the media start paying attention to the race.
  • RodCrosby
    RodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    As I pointed out two days ago...
  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    How will the poll allow for postal voters - will it ask how will you vote or how will you/did you vote?
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    UKIP "won" the city council votes in the Euro. While it has been pointed out that those boundaries do not exactly match the constituency boundaries, I feel that hardly matters since UKIP did well equally in the entire region. As far as Gedling, Broxtowe, so why not Newark ?

    Then prospective Labour voters can play an historic part. Let's see how different Ashcroft poll is from the other one ?
  • MrJones
    MrJones Posts: 3,523
    dunno. given Con had 50%+ in 2010 I'd have thought this would be close but not quite close enough except there's a wildcard with Lab voters who might like to see Cameron's face after a Ukip win - which i imagine would be quite entertaining. conclusion, still dunno.
  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov:33/36/7/15/4

    The 2010 LD split: Cons:13; LAB:33; LD:30; UKIP:10; Green:10

    Well/Badly: DC:-10(-1); EdM:-46(-5); NC:-65(-9)

    When would you most like to see a referendum on
    Britain's membership of the European Union?
    Before the GE: 34
    Same day as GE:13
    2016:13
    2017: 8
    Should not be a referendum: 16 (only LDs in favour)
    DK:15

    David Cameron has said he will seek to renegotiate
    Britain's membership of the European Union and then
    hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain a
    member.
    When renegotiating Britain's relationship with the EU, in
    which if any of the following areas do you think David
    Cameron should seek to change our relationship with the
    EU? Please tick up to three
    Greater control of our borders and immigration from the EU:58
    Limits on EU citizens rights to claim UK benefits or use the NHS: 54
    Relax Human Rights Laws: 22
    Freedom to set up our own trade relations with countries outside the EU:22

    Thinking about the current right of people from the
    European Union to claim benefits if they go to live in
    other European countries, what would you most like to
    see David Cameron seek in any renegotiation?
    A total ban on EU citizens claiming benefits in the UK: 37
    Restrictions on amount of UK benefits EU citizens can claim:34
    None of these 15:

  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    YouGov

    If the Labour party and Ed Miliband win the next election
    and form a government, how well or badly do you think
    they would handle the issue of immigration from the
    European Union?
    Well:25
    Badly:57

    Thinking back to the last Labour governments under
    Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, how well or badly do you
    think they handled the issue of immigration from the
    European Union?
    Well: 17
    Badly:69

    Labour's current policy is only to hold a referendum on
    Britain's membership of the European Union if there is a
    proposal to transfer more powers to the EU
    Do you think Ed Miliband should or should not promise
    to hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU
    during the next Parliament anyway?
    Should promise to hold a referendum anyway, regardless of
    whether there are proposals to transfer more powers:52
    Only if transfer of more powers:16
    No referendum:10
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited June 2014
    Financier said:

    YouGov:33/36/7/15/4

    The 2010 LD split: Cons:13; LAB:33; LD:30; UKIP:10; Green:10

    Well/Badly: DC:-10(-1); EdM:-46(-5); NC:-65(-9)

    When would you most like to see a referendum on
    Britain's membership of the European Union?
    Before the GE: 34
    Same day as GE:13
    2016:13
    2017: 8
    Should not be a referendum: 16 (only LDs in favour)
    DK:15

    David Cameron has said he will seek to renegotiate
    Britain's membership of the European Union and then
    hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain a
    member.
    When renegotiating Britain's relationship with the EU, in
    which if any of the following areas do you think David
    Cameron should seek to change our relationship with the
    EU? Please tick up to three
    Greater control of our borders and immigration from the EU:58
    Limits on EU citizens rights to claim UK benefits or use the NHS: 54
    Relax Human Rights Laws: 22
    Freedom to set up our own trade relations with countries outside the EU:22

    Thinking about the current right of people from the
    European Union to claim benefits if they go to live in
    other European countries, what would you most like to
    see David Cameron seek in any renegotiation?
    A total ban on EU citizens claiming benefits in the UK: 37
    Restrictions on amount of UK benefits EU citizens can claim:34
    None of these 15:

    OK. LD got 23% in 2010. Therefore, 33% of 23 is approx 7.6.

    Labour got 29.6. Therefore, 29.6 + 7.6 = 37.2.

    As such , Labour's net loss [ UKIP and others ] = -1.2

    UKIP = 10, means 7 more than GE2010. On a 2:1 ratio that means about 2.3 has come from Labour.

    So, 1,1% has come from the Tories.

    Summary:

    Lab 2010: 29.6 + Lib Dem 2010: 7.6 - UKIP: 2.3 + Tory/Others 2010: 1.1 = Lab Yougov: 36.

    Stands to reason.
  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    surbiton said:

    Financier said:

    YouGov:33/36/7/15/4

    The 2010 LD split: Cons:13; LAB:33; LD:30; UKIP:10; Green:10

    Well/Badly: DC:-10(-1); EdM:-46(-5); NC:-65(-9)

    When would you most like to see a referendum on
    Britain's membership of the European Union?
    Before the GE: 34
    Same day as GE:13
    2016:13
    2017: 8
    Should not be a referendum: 16 (only LDs in favour)
    DK:15

    David Cameron has said he will seek to renegotiate
    Britain's membership of the European Union and then
    hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain a
    member.
    When renegotiating Britain's relationship with the EU, in
    which if any of the following areas do you think David
    Cameron should seek to change our relationship with the
    EU? Please tick up to three
    Greater control of our borders and immigration from the EU:58
    Limits on EU citizens rights to claim UK benefits or use the NHS: 54
    Relax Human Rights Laws: 22
    Freedom to set up our own trade relations with countries outside the EU:22

    Thinking about the current right of people from the
    European Union to claim benefits if they go to live in
    other European countries, what would you most like to
    see David Cameron seek in any renegotiation?
    A total ban on EU citizens claiming benefits in the UK: 37
    Restrictions on amount of UK benefits EU citizens can claim:34
    None of these 15:

    OK. LD got 23% in 2010. Therefore, 33% of 23 is approx 7.6.

    Labour got 29.6. Therefore, 29.6 + 7.6 = 37.2.

    As such , Labour's net loss [ UKIP and others ] = -1.2

    UKIP = 10, means 7 more than GE2010. On a 2:1 ratio that means about 2.3 has come from Labour.

    So, 1,1% has come from the Tories.

    Summary:

    Lab 2010: 29.6 + Lib Dem 2010: 7.6 - UKIP: 2.3 + Tory/Others 2010: 1.1 = Lab Yougov: 36.

    Stands to reason.
    For this poll, the total sample is 2090 and the 2010 VI for three parties is 1564

  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Financier said:

    YouGov:33/36/7/15/4

    I was expecting UKIP to get a boost after the EU Parliament result. YouGov and Populus don't seem to have found one.
  • Innocent_Abroad
    Innocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Has Ashcroft an estimate of the turn-out? I'd have thought the lower it was, the better for UKIP...
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    edited June 2014
    anotherDave said:

    Financier said:

    YouGov:33/36/7/15/4

    I was expecting UKIP to get a boost after the EU Parliament result. YouGov and Populus don't seem to have found one.
    Maybe the opposite: They were getting a boost in the Westminster polls because thinking about Euro voting intention was bleeding into people's answers for the UK election. If that's right, now that the Euros are over we'd expect polling to revert to more like the place where it was a few months ago.
  • Paul_Mid_Beds
    Paul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edmundintokyo said:

    anotherDave said:

    Financier said:

    YouGov:33/36/7/15/4

    I was expecting UKIP to get a boost after the EU Parliament result. YouGov and Populus don't seem to have found one.
    Maybe the opposite: They were getting a boost in the Westminster polls because thinking about Euro voting intention was bleeding into people's answers for the UK election. If that's right, now that the Euros are over we'd expect polling to revert to more like the place where it was a few months ago.
    YouGov's UKIP numbers before the election result were within their normal range.

    The LDs appear to have had a brief dip in their numbers after the local/EU result.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014
  • Easterross
    Easterross Posts: 1,915
    Good morning all and on thread there is one fundamental difference.

    At the time of the previous by-elections, UKIP was still being referred to by many, if not most as the fruitcake party. It is now seen as a serious player. People are no longer ashamed to admit that they support UKIP which was certainly the case 1-2 years ago.
  • John_M
    John_M Posts: 7,503
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    "State primary school educated". Oh dear. Obfuscation just doesn't work any longer.

  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
    Their argument is that he's misleading the voters about it. Hard to say one way or the other without seeing the leaflets they're putting out. The lines they quote sound dodgy, but you obviously can't trust a quote from the Daily Mail without seeing the original context.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
    You really think that if it was a UKIP candidate with 3 houses and a multi-million pound fortune wandering about claiming to be the 'common man' then the Tories would not be all over it. They have used this attack line time and time again against Labour. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you claim it is not important.
  • SquareRoot
    SquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.

    The Daily Mail is an evil newspaper, it has no scruples or morals at all, it panders to peoples worst instincts. Apart frim that the website is tits and bums , and not al lot else,

    It has its uses as emergency bog paper.
  • Paul_Mid_Beds
    Paul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    ToryJim.

    What is in my opinion highly significant is not that they have done it, but they have done it to the Tory candidate not the UKIP one.

  • Innocent_Abroad
    Innocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    SquareRoot said:

    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.

    The Daily Mail is an evil newspaper, it has no scruples or morals at all, it panders to peoples worst instincts. Apart frim that the website is tits and bums , and not al lot else,

    It has its uses as emergency bog paper.
    Not the website, though...

  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    ToryJim.

    What is in my opinion highly significant is not that they have done it, but they have done it to the Tory candidate not the UKIP one.

    Not really, the Mail has often had a blind spot for parties such as UKIP.
  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
    You really think that if it was a UKIP candidate with 3 houses and a multi-million pound fortune wandering about claiming to be the 'common man' then the Tories would not be all over it. They have used this attack line time and time again against Labour. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you claim it is not important.
    I've never thought it was important, but then I believe MPs are there to represent my interests and not my demographic makeup.
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It is perfectly commonplace for wealthyUKIP politicians to claim to be speaking for the common man. Nigel Farage springs to mind, or the multimillionaire Old Etonian Lord Pearson, former leader of UKIP:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6692856/UKIP-leader-Lord-Pearson-claimed-100000-allowances-for-3.7m-London-home.html

    I look forward to the common man Roger Helmer speaking for the people of Newark: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100054433/catholic-church-is-systemically-paedophile-says-tory-mep/

    _
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
    You really think that if it was a UKIP candidate with 3 houses and a multi-million pound fortune wandering about claiming to be the 'common man' then the Tories would not be all over it. They have used this attack line time and time again against Labour. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you claim it is not important.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2014
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    ToryJim.

    What is in my opinion highly significant is not that they have done it, but they have done it to the Tory candidate not the UKIP one.

    Over the past year, the Daily Mail has run hatchet jobs on politicians from every political party and continues to do so. – I'm amazed kippers were oblivious to this fact and only woke up when UKIP became the story.
  • SquareRoot
    SquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    SquareRoot said:

    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.

    The Daily Mail is an evil newspaper, it has no scruples or morals at all, it panders to peoples worst instincts. Apart frim that the website is tits and bums , and not al lot else,

    It has its uses as emergency bog paper.
    Not the website, though...

    More's the pity.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    foxinsoxuk said:

    It is perfectly commonplace for wealthyUKIP politicians to claim to be speaking for the common man. Nigel Farage springs to mind, or the multimillionaire Old Etonian Lord Pearson, former leader of UKIP:

    Or the multi-millionaire privately educated Nick Clegg.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    edited June 2014
    ToryJim said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    ToryJim said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Really it's just a Daily Mail hatchet job. The idea that anyone who goes into politics should have emerged from a Dickensian poorhouse is utter rot. Criticising people for where their parents sent them to school is ridiculous.
    You really think that if it was a UKIP candidate with 3 houses and a multi-million pound fortune wandering about claiming to be the 'common man' then the Tories would not be all over it. They have used this attack line time and time again against Labour. Now the shoe is on the other foot and you claim it is not important.
    I've never thought it was important, but then I believe MPs are there to represent my interests and not my demographic makeup.
    That's fair enough, but then if you run for office you shouldn't make claims to the voters about your demographic makeup, which is what's alleged here.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Just your average Tory politician then , cannot wait to get at the trough
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Absolutely. But UKIP politicians are just as much part of the wealthy elite as the others. To pretend differently is rank hypocracy.

    Roger Helmer MP as the public face of UKIP for the next year is going to be entertaining. Be careful what you wish for!
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    It is perfectly commonplace for wealthyUKIP politicians to claim to be speaking for the common man. Nigel Farage springs to mind, or the multimillionaire Old Etonian Lord Pearson, former leader of UKIP:

    Or the multi-millionaire privately educated Nick Clegg.
  • Easterross
    Easterross Posts: 1,915
    Anna Soubry on Marr reviewing papers pointing out that in areas like hers, Labour should have done much better last week. As Jack W would say titters!
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Absolutely. But UKIP politicians are just as much part of the wealthy elite as the others. To pretend differently is rank hypocracy.

    Roger Helmer MP as the public face of UKIP for the next year is going to be entertaining. Be careful what you wish for!

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    It is perfectly commonplace for wealthyUKIP politicians to claim to be speaking for the common man. Nigel Farage springs to mind, or the multimillionaire Old Etonian Lord Pearson, former leader of UKIP:

    Or the multi-millionaire privately educated Nick Clegg.
    To be honest it could not be any worse than Mercer who I helped get elected back in 2001.
  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Easterross said:

    Anna Soubry on Marr reviewing papers pointing out that in areas like hers, Labour should have done much better last week. As Jack W would say titters!

    She's in a feisty mood this morning.

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Posts: 408
    Helmer just said on LBC "I'm not a betting man, but I think our odds of winning are substantially better than those being offered by bookmakers... so if anyone wants to place a bet on me they're very welcome." He gave a pretty good interview.

    Jenrick had apparently also agreed to be interviewed, but was not answering his phone.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Commercial reality ALWAYS trumps political loyalty with the British media - they see themselves first and foremost as a branch of the entertainment industry. The Mail in particular attracts readers on the basis that they portray themselves as on your side vs. all the vile politicians of every party.

    It is, of course, a hatchet job, and the question is whether there's any hypocrisy in the leaflets. IMO the candidate would have been best advised to say "I was lucky enough to be sent to an exceptionally good school and have had a very successful career - now I'd like to give something back by being a good MP". Very few voters would object to that. The only real angle of attack is if his leaflets portray him as quasi-local and a humble small businessman. If they do, his advisers are idiots.

  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Easterross said:

    Anna Soubry on Marr reviewing papers pointing out that in areas like hers, Labour should have done much better last week. As Jack W would say titters!

    Yep - her lot came third...

  • MattW
    MattW Posts: 28,308
    An attempt to fit up Newark as a poor northern town full of forelock-tuggers is brilliant.

    It is Nottinghamshire's Chipping Norton.

    Random fact: I seem to remember that the rebuild insurance value of the parish church is around £12m.
  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Good grief Lord Ashdown's eyes get narrower every time he appears.
  • Jonathan
    Jonathan Posts: 22,107
    Delicious comment in the Guardian. Nick Clegg as head of the EU instead of Juncker.

    How to unite the Tories, LDs, Labour and UKIP.
  • Socrates
    Socrates Posts: 10,322
    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Blueberry said:

    Helmer just said on LBC "I'm not a betting man, but I think our odds of winning are substantially better than those being offered by bookmakers... so if anyone wants to place a bet on me they're very welcome." He gave a pretty good interview.

    Jenrick had apparently also agreed to be interviewed, but was not answering his phone.

    Does LBC broadcast to Newark?

  • SquareRoot
    SquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    NickPalmer said:

    Easterross said:

    Anna Soubry on Marr reviewing papers pointing out that in areas like hers, Labour should have done much better last week. As Jack W would say titters!

    Yep - her lot came third...

    Do you have any "/kippers for Palmer" this time round?
  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Lord Ashdown saying the Lib Dem's will block immigration reform, if I understood his convoluted wording.
  • Scrapheap_as_was
    Scrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Just as well for Ed that Clegg's scores are so bad to take the headlines, Ed's are back down to pre-Conference freeze wheeze levels.
  • saddened
    saddened Posts: 2,245
    malcolmg said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Just your average Tory politician then , cannot wait to get at the trough
    Tick Toc, almost time for your defeat at the polls.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    Socrates said:

    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?

    No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Posts: 408
    anotherDave said:

    Blueberry said:

    Helmer just said on LBC "I'm not a betting man, but I think our odds of winning are substantially better than those being offered by bookmakers... so if anyone wants to place a bet on me they're very welcome." He gave a pretty good interview.

    Jenrick had apparently also agreed to be interviewed, but was not answering his phone.

    Does LBC broadcast to Newark?

    It went national on DAB about two months ago - so yes one could get it in Newark. They do lots of phone-ins and it's noticeable that the audience is becoming more geographically dispersed.

    Kay Burley made an arse of herself by persistently asking Helmer about rape and trying to put words into his mouth. Helmer replied with unspinnable common sense answers - he's a good speaker.
  • taffys
    taffys Posts: 9,753
    Just read about the background of the conservative candidate in Newark.

    Honestly, what are the tories on....
  • GIN1138
    GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    edited June 2014
    The Eastleigh by election is one thing, but on the other hand didn't UKIP generally under-perform in the local and European elections this year, compared to what the opinion polls were saying?

    Perhaps it's all got a bit like the Cleggasm where people that have no intention of voting are getting on the band wagon?

    With just one poll and no knowledge of Newark I'm still saying Conservatives win with a much reduced but fairly comfortable majority (2,000-3,000 perhaps?)
  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Farage lying on Marr.
  • malcolmg
    malcolmg Posts: 44,523
    saddened said:

    malcolmg said:

    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    This is significant, given where it has been published. This article about the tory candidate in the Mail does not make good reading for tories to say the least.

    I wonder if commercial reality is perhaps starting to trump political loyalty.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645084/Newark-election-Tory-candidate-Robert-Jenrick-says-just-three-homes-doesnt-mean-I-dont-know-life-breadline.html


    Just your average Tory politician then , cannot wait to get at the trough
    Tick Toc, almost time for your defeat at the polls.
    Fanny
  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    Ministers will this week announce that highly paid public employees will be prevented from taking redundancy payoffs if they quit and then walk into a new job in the same sector.

    Redundancy payments will be recouped from anyone earning more than £100,000 a year if they go back into a similar role within 12 months of leaving their job.

    The announcement will be made in the Queen's speech this week. In the NHS between 2010 and 2013, out of 19,000 redundancies of NHS staff, 17% had been rehired by the NHS and 13% of these within a year.

    An Audit Commission report into local government in 2010 found that, of 37 chief executives who left by mutual agreement between January 2007 and September 2009, 16% had been employed by another council within 12 months.

    The threshold for full repayment would be an annual salary of more than £100,000; below this, repayments would be tapered. The intention is that someone earning £90,000 would be expected to repay a higher proportion of their redundancy package than someone earning £80,000.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/31/rehired-civil-servants-lose-redundancy-payoff?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - news:Position5
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Not a great track record at candidate selection then!

    Jenrick would be one of many, but Roger Helmer MP would be UKIPs face at Westminster. As a LibDem I look forward to it.
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Absolutely. But UKIP politicians are just as much part of the wealthy elite as the others. To pretend differently is rank hypocracy.

    Roger Helmer MP as the public face of UKIP for the next year is going to be entertaining. Be careful what you wish for!

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    It is perfectly commonplace for wealthyUKIP politicians to claim to be speaking for the common man. Nigel Farage springs to mind, or the multimillionaire Old Etonian Lord Pearson, former leader of UKIP:

    Or the multi-millionaire privately educated Nick Clegg.
    To be honest it could not be any worse than Mercer who I helped get elected back in 2001.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    edited June 2014
    Farage seems to be doing a good job on Marr. A little bit of a soft interview, no tough questions, but he's coming across well.

    He also just said that he is going to stand "in the South East of England because that's where I'm from"

    Full manifesto to come in Doncaster at the autumn conference. Will take people out of minimum wage out of income tax and reduce the top rate to 40p. No comment on how he's going to reduce spending to fund it, but I only caught the end of the interview.
  • Financier
    Financier Posts: 3,916
    ToryJim said:

    Lord Ashdown saying the Lib Dem's will block immigration reform, if I understood his convoluted wording.

    Yes, you did understand him correctly. The LDs 2015 death-wish. Ashdown said he did not object to EU reform but was careful not to give any examples of such reform.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    Financier said:

    Ministers will this week announce that highly paid public employees will be prevented from taking redundancy payoffs if they quit and then walk into a new job in the same sector.

    Redundancy payments will be recouped from anyone earning more than £100,000 a year if they go back into a similar role within 12 months of leaving their job.

    The announcement will be made in the Queen's speech this week. In the NHS between 2010 and 2013, out of 19,000 redundancies of NHS staff, 17% had been rehired by the NHS and 13% of these within a year.

    An Audit Commission report into local government in 2010 found that, of 37 chief executives who left by mutual agreement between January 2007 and September 2009, 16% had been employed by another council within 12 months.

    The threshold for full repayment would be an annual salary of more than £100,000; below this, repayments would be tapered. The intention is that someone earning £90,000 would be expected to repay a higher proportion of their redundancy package than someone earning £80,000.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/31/rehired-civil-servants-lose-redundancy-payoff?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - news:Position5

    depending on the detail seems sensible.
  • Paul_Mid_Beds
    Paul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited June 2014
    It appeared to me to have characteristics of a hatchet too.

    What I thought was highly significant is that it was was aimed at the Tory in a by election where UKIP are the only other contender with a real chance of winning, four days from the election.

    In the run up to the Euros the aim was IMHO squarely at UKIP. Thats the difference and why I thought it worth posting.



  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    Charles said:

    Farage seems to be doing a good job on Marr. A little bit of a soft interview, no tough questions, but he's coming across well.

    He also just said that he is going to stand "in the South East of England because that's where I'm from"

    Full manifesto to come in Doncaster at the autumn conference. Will take people out of minimum wage out of income tax and reduce the top rate to 40p. No comment on how he's going to reduce spending to fund it, but I only caught the end of the interview.

    He didn't comment on spending really other than the tired cliche about 'managers'.
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited June 2014
    Charles said:

    Farage seems to be doing a good job on Marr. A little bit of a soft interview, no tough questions, but he's coming across well.

    He also just said that he is going to stand "in the South East of England because that's where I'm from"

    Perhaps he should stand in Tessa Jowell's Dulwich and West Norwood constituency - As he's an old Alleynian, he must be more than familiar with the area.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    edited June 2014
    SquareRoot said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Easterross said:

    Anna Soubry on Marr reviewing papers pointing out that in areas like hers, Labour should have done much better last week. As Jack W would say titters!

    Yep - her lot came third...

    Do you have any "/kippers for Palmer" this time round?
    Yes, oddly, quite a few, though I can't see them organising like the Tory group did: they aren't into political organisation. They know all about my europhilia but it's not the only thing that makes every UKIP voter tick. Annoyingly (usually) for us politics geeks, a lot of people don't really vote on policy at all, merely on who they want to be their local MP.

    I once canvassed a girl with a zealot colleague and she said she'd vote for me. I said, "thanks, that's great." My colleague said, "You are so right, because..." and launched into a two-minute harangue on our wonderful policies. The voter eyed, him bemused, and said er, she wasn't so sure now...



  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "Roger Helmer
    ‏@RogerHelmerMEP
    Headline: "PM threatens to quit EU". There must be a by-election coming up somewhere."

    twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/473002905336037376

    :-)

  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Not a great track record at candidate selection then!

    Jenrick would be one of many, but Roger Helmer MP would be UKIPs face at Westminster. As a LibDem I look forward to it.

    To be honest it could not be any worse than Mercer who I helped get elected back in 2001.



    Unfashionably I don't actually think Mercer was a bad MP in the Commons (don't know about his local work), though he clearly screwed up over the paid lobby group - presumably due to arrogant carelessness like several other MPs, since I can't imagine he desperately needed the dosh. He was mildly maverick without the preening self-regard that spoils some mavericks, and genuinely interested and concerned with army matters, which the Commons needs. We always got on well and I was sorry to see his downfall. That said, I don't believe he really liked politics and he'd have been well-advised to stay in the Army.

    I know Roger Helmer moderately well too. He's essentially an unflinchingly free-market Tory who has taken against the EU. He's tough and quite courageous in taking on hostile audiences, and polite to all-comers (his victory comments after the Euros were notably courteous to his rivals), but not as affable and engaging as Mercer.

  • Innocent_Abroad
    Innocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    NickPalmer said:

    SquareRoot said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Easterross said:

    Anna Soubry on Marr reviewing papers pointing out that in areas like hers, Labour should have done much better last week. As Jack W would say titters!

    Yep - her lot came third...

    Do you have any "/kippers for Palmer" this time round?
    Yes, oddly, quite a few, though I can't see them organising like the Tory group did: they aren't into political organisation. They know all about my europhilia but it's not the only thing that makes every UKIP voter tick. Annoyingly (usually) for us politics geeks, a lot of people don't really vote on policy at all, merely on who they want to be their local MP.

    I once canvassed a girl with a zealot colleague and she said she'd vote for me. I said, "thanks, that's great." My colleague said, "You are so right, because..." and launched into a two-minute harangue on our wonderful policies. The voter eyed, him bemused, and said er, she wasn't so sure now...



    One of my (Tory) councillors canvassed me last month and asked me if I'd vote for her (she's a nice lass, very pro-NHS) and I said "of course I will" and we had a three-minute chat and neither of us mentioned her Party once! I was pleased to see that she topped the poll by more than could be accounted for by alphabetical order alone...

  • Socrates
    Socrates Posts: 10,322
    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?

    No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
    We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
  • DecrepitJohnL
    DecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Paul_Mid_Beds said:

    It appeared to me to have characteristics of a hatchet too.

    What I thought was highly significant is that it was was aimed at the Tory in a by election where UKIP are the only other contender with a real chance of winning, four days from the election.

    In the run up to the Euros the aim was IMHO squarely at UKIP. Thats the difference and why I thought it worth posting.



    Equally interesting is that Central Office did not spot this elephant trap. In years gone by, he'd have got away with an airbrushed cv at a general election but surely not at a byelection.

    Will both main parties, with their reliance on American and Australian campaign gurus, make the same mistake in 2015? Now that any local journalist or party activist has access to Google, Linkedin and Wikipedia, personal histories can surely not go unchecked.
  • Socrates
    Socrates Posts: 10,322
    I'm torn about Newark. One the one hand, having an MP would destroy the last argument about UKIP getting a debate place on par with the Lib Dems. On the other, I don't really want Helmer being a major UKIP spokesman.
  • Scott_P
    Scott_P Posts: 51,453
    Socrates said:

    having an MP would destroy the last argument about UKIP getting a debate place on par with the Lib Dems.

    No, it really wouldn't
  • volcanopete
    volcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Newark promises to support the message that if you vote Ukip,you get a Tory.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?

    No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
    We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
    There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Nice graph

    twitter.com/GalileoMovement/status/472879023152832513

    "There is no climate crisis, only a climate model crisis"
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I think having the very libertarian free market Roger Helmer as the MP face of UKIP is not going to win over a lot of WWC Labour voters. Didn't he agree with Dan Hannan that the NHS was a sixty year mistake?

    His manners matter little compared to his policies. Indeed the fact that such people no longer feel comfortable in the Tories shows that Camerons detox strategy has worked. Meanwhile UKIP adopt a re-tox strategy...
    NickPalmer said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    Not a great track record at candidate selection then!

    Jenrick would be one of many, but Roger Helmer MP would be UKIPs face at Westminster. As a LibDem I look forward to it.

    To be honest it could not be any worse than Mercer who I helped get elected back in 2001.

    Unfashionably I don't actually think Mercer was a bad MP in the Commons (don't know about his local work), though he clearly screwed up over the paid lobby group - presumably due to arrogant carelessness like several other MPs, since I can't imagine he desperately needed the dosh. He was mildly maverick without the preening self-regard that spoils some mavericks, and genuinely interested and concerned with army matters, which the Commons needs. We always got on well and I was sorry to see his downfall. That said, I don't believe he really liked politics and he'd have been well-advised to stay in the Army.

    I know Roger Helmer moderately well too. He's essentially an unflinchingly free-market Tory who has taken against the EU. He's tough and quite courageous in taking on hostile audiences, and polite to all-comers (his victory comments after the Euros were notably courteous to his rivals), but not as affable and engaging as Mercer.



  • isam
    isam Posts: 42,205
    "Ukip won the Euro elections in the face of years of scorn and derision from the Tory leadership, who called them fruitcakes, racists and clowns, and from the tame media, including the BBC, who for weeks before the election obediently recycled smears about individual Ukip candidates, pretending they’d found them themselves when of course they came from within the Tory dirty-tricks department.

    The Tory Party dared not fight on its record, which is one of sustained Blairism, on immigration, political correctness, education and the economy (a dangerously inflated mass of debt which will explode like a punctured Zeppelin once George Osborne is out of the way after the next Election).

    So it fought instead with smears. And now it seeks to deflect attention from the Blairite Tory Party’s disaster at the polls.

    Some dingbat at Tory headquarters who doesn’t read the papers has been sending me the emails they dispatch to their loyal media toadies. I have no hesitation in sharing them with you."


    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    The website of the Newark Advertiser (appears to be the local paper) is displaying 2 Conservative Party adverts per page.

    http://newarkadvertiser.co.uk
  • Luckyguy1983
    Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,095
    NickPalmer said:



    Unfashionably I don't actually think Mercer was a bad MP in the Commons (don't know about his local work), though he clearly screwed up over the paid lobby group - presumably due to arrogant carelessness like several other MPs, since I can't imagine he desperately needed the dosh. He was mildly maverick without the preening self-regard that spoils some mavericks, and genuinely interested and concerned with army matters, which the Commons needs. We always got on well and I was sorry to see his downfall. That said, I don't believe he really liked politics and he'd have been well-advised to stay in the Army.

    I know Roger Helmer moderately well too. He's essentially an unflinchingly free-market Tory who has taken against the EU. He's tough and quite courageous in taking on hostile audiences, and polite to all-comers (his victory comments after the Euros were notably courteous to his rivals), but not as affable and engaging as Mercer.

    But was his campaign against poor Fiona Jones not pretty inhuman?
  • Socrates
    Socrates Posts: 10,322
    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?

    No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
    We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
    There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
    Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    anotherDave said:

    "Roger Helmer
    ‏@RogerHelmerMEP
    Headline: "PM threatens to quit EU". There must be a by-election coming up somewhere."

    twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/473002905336037376

    :-)

    It's all getting a bit The Thick Of It. It seem like Merkel and some of the other EPP leaders had a plan to switch out a different candidate to avoid setting the precedent that the candidate whose party got the most votes won. Cameron presumably saw that and thought he could use that to do the old John Major maneuver where you make a big stand about the federalist fixer they initially propose, he gets switched for different federalist fixer and you can come home and declare victory. But then one of the big German tabloids came out against the plot and Merkel seems to have reversed herself, but Cameron is still stuck with his big stand...
  • MikeK
    MikeK Posts: 9,053
    Just awoke and missed Farage on Marr. How was it, any good?
  • BobaFett
    BobaFett Posts: 2,789
    @Fox

    What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    edited June 2014
    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?

    No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
    We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
    There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
    Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
    The EPP appoints their candidate, then if they get most seats that person gets the job with the support of other parties making 50%. It's the same as the way David Cameron gets to be the UK Prime Minister with only 36% of the vote, and less than 50% of the seats.
  • ToryJim
    ToryJim Posts: 4,193
    MikeK said:

    Just awoke and missed Farage on Marr. How was it, any good?

    Usual Farage routine, mildly entertaining if you like that sort of thing but nothing new or terribly engaging.

  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    No idea!

    But here I am a Bennite: politics should not be about personalities, it should be about policies and ideas.

    I do not dislike either Helmer or Farage for their manners or personalities, it is for their policies, which are similtaneously negative and incoherent.

    BobaFett said:

    @Fox

    What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.

  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    BobaFett said:

    @Fox

    What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.

    You are very reliably informed :-)

    Mercer had a lot of very nasty things to say about Cameron from the start. A number of them I would not repeat as they are certainly actionable and I very much doubt their truth but loathing is certainly not too strong a word to describe what he thought of him.

    This all predated any of the better known issues that lead to and followed Mercer losing his ministerial position. I think it was just that Cameron represented the sort of person an ex military man would instinctively distrust and with that as the initial basis of their relationship, combined with Mercer's support for Davis, it was all downhill from there.
  • No_Offence_Alan
    No_Offence_Alan Posts: 5,120
    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    Socrates said:

    FPT

    "In this case it's not "been left out", it's "opted out". If Cameron's conservatives has stayed in the group with the rest of the EU's conservatives, they, as a fairly big country with a conservative government, would have had a lot of influence over the choice of the EPP candidate. Instead they left the group, and left the decision to Rajoy and Merkel."

    Because we had oh so much influence when Blair was leader? Even after giving billions extra into the EU budget, what did he achieve?

    No question they'd have had plenty of influence over the EPP nomination. Cameron would have been one of basically three Prime Ministers of large countries at the convention. Assuming his delegates followed him, he'd have had the votes to block Juncker, and if he didn't like Barnier he would have had enough heft to get another candidate more to his liking into the running.
    We've had a PM of one of the big three countries for decades, but never seen it achieve much, with either party in power.
    There's never been a formal candidate selection before. Look at the actual candidate selection process that happened in Dublin this year and try to tell me that Cameron wouldn't have been seriously influential if he'd still been in the party.
    Why does the EPP even get to appoint the position anyway? They only got 28% of the seats.
    I don't recall Cameron and the Conservatives saying anything during the Euro campaign about who their preferred choice was, so why all the fuss?
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    NickPalmer said:



    Unfashionably I don't actually think Mercer was a bad MP in the Commons (don't know about his local work), though he clearly screwed up over the paid lobby group - presumably due to arrogant carelessness like several other MPs, since I can't imagine he desperately needed the dosh. He was mildly maverick without the preening self-regard that spoils some mavericks, and genuinely interested and concerned with army matters, which the Commons needs. We always got on well and I was sorry to see his downfall. That said, I don't believe he really liked politics and he'd have been well-advised to stay in the Army.

    I know Roger Helmer moderately well too. He's essentially an unflinchingly free-market Tory who has taken against the EU. He's tough and quite courageous in taking on hostile audiences, and polite to all-comers (his victory comments after the Euros were notably courteous to his rivals), but not as affable and engaging as Mercer.

    But was his campaign against poor Fiona Jones not pretty inhuman?
    Not at all. Jones was an awful MP and intensely disliked in Newark. That wasn't just from her political opponents. She also managed to split her own local party in two and a number of former Labour councillors are still sitting as independents almost a decade after she went.

    I have no idea what Jones was like as a person - probably absolutely fine - but as an MP she had no redeeming factors.

    Oh and a lot of what is laid at Mercer's door in the campaign against Jones actually started long before he ever came on the scene. I should know as a fair bit of it was down to myself and a set of like minded colleagues with no connection to the Tory party.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    MikeK said:

    Just awoke and missed Farage on Marr. How was it, any good?

    The putative Ukip PPC for Thanet South was very engaging and gave a good media performance even though some of it was the usual fruitcakery.

  • FluffyThoughts
    FluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited June 2014
    foxinsoxuk said:

    I think having the very libertarian free market Roger Helmer as the MP face of UKIP is not going to win over a lot of WWC Labour voters. Didn't he agree with Dan Hannan that the NHS was a sixty year mistake[?]

    No 'Producer-InfluencedInterest' diatribe there then Dr Fox: Almost as incurable as your diagnoses for "Successor". Are you paid by the post...?
  • surbiton
    surbiton Posts: 13,549
    BobaFett said:

    @Fox

    What was behind the bad blood between Mercer and Cameron. I am reliably informed that the two men loathe each other.

    Sam Cam ? I don't know.
  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    foxinsoxuk said:

    Not a great track record at candidate selection then!

    Jenrick would be one of many, but Roger Helmer MP would be UKIPs face at Westminster. As a LibDem I look forward to it.

    Mercer - to my mind - is a classic case of politics changing people.
  • MikeK
    MikeK Posts: 9,053
    Socrates said:

    I'm torn about Newark. One the one hand, having an MP would destroy the last argument about UKIP getting a debate place on par with the Lib Dems. On the other, I don't really want Helmer being a major UKIP spokesman.

    I can quite understand your intellectual dilemma, but unless you have a vote in Newark, you won't be in a position to act on your personal dislike of Helmer. Though why you should dislike an affable and well dispositioned man, I cannot say, unless it's because he's an ex Tory and not newly fashioned UKIPer.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Luckyguy1983 said:



    But was his campaign against poor Fiona Jones not pretty inhuman?

    I didn't know that - sorry to hear it.

  • Richard_Tyndall
    Richard_Tyndall Posts: 33,463
    NickPalmer said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:



    But was his campaign against poor Fiona Jones not pretty inhuman?

    I didn't know that - sorry to hear it.

    Don't be Nick. Patrick's campaign against Jones was not in any way inhuman.
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    I am very happy for Helmer as the face of UKIP to argue for the end of the NHS. I just do not see it winning many votes.

    I have made a number of critiques of the NHS over the years. Certainly it would be run very differently if I were in charge. What I particularly dislike is the mendacity of parties such as New Labour being elected on a ticket of ending the internal market; then embedding it and a top down target culture.
    FluffyThoughts said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    I think having the very libertarian free market Roger Helmer as the MP face of UKIP is not going to win over a lot of WWC Labour voters. Didn't he agree with Dan Hannan that the NHS was a sixty year mistake[?]

    No 'Producer-InfluencedInterest' diatribe there then Dr Fox: Almost as incurable as your diagnoses for "Successor". Are you paid by the post...?
  • anotherDave
    anotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited June 2014
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Mercer - to my mind - is a classic case of politics changing people

    How did he change?

  • MikeK
    MikeK Posts: 9,053
    JackW said:

    MikeK said:

    Just awoke and missed Farage on Marr. How was it, any good?

    The putative Ukip PPC for Thanet South was very engaging and gave a good media performance even though some of it was the usual fruitcakery.

    For your next birthday I'm sending you a nice raisin cake and a bottle of Prosecco in the belief that you will soon have to make a major overhaul of your famous ARSE.
  • Sunil_Prasannan
    Sunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,080
    edited June 2014
    It would be great if UKIP actually win Newark. Speaking as someone who voted UKIP at the Euros, I don't think they will, the Tories will probably sneak home. But - I'll tell you honestly, I will love it if we beat them! Love it!
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    BBC – Lib Dems must 'stop plotting' against Clegg, Ashdown says.

    “He told the BBC that those seeking to oust Mr Clegg were motivated by "deep malice" and had made "a bad situation worse" after poor election results.”

    Is there any other kind of 'malice' I wonder..?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27654959
  • foxinsoxuk
    foxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It sounds as if the campaign against Jones was an internal Labour one:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/06/gender.politics

    Though neither LibDems or parliamentry colleagues seem to have been very helpful

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:



    But was his campaign against poor Fiona Jones not pretty inhuman?

    I didn't know that - sorry to hear it.

    Don't be Nick. Patrick's campaign against Jones was not in any way inhuman.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:



    But was his campaign against poor Fiona Jones not pretty inhuman?

    I didn't know that - sorry to hear it.

    Don't be Nick. Patrick's campaign against Jones was not in any way inhuman.
    Good. On reflection, I talked to her after she lost - she was very unhappy about the police and the Newark Advertiser, but didn't mention Patrick's campaign as having been problematic.

    She was in my opinion a tragic case of a lively, gutsy person who let herself be trapped in brooding about perceived past injustices. Sometimes you just have to move on from unfairness or you destroy yourself.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories