politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » YouGov finds that people are a lot more negative and less p
Comments
-
Sorry to hear that Casino - I always took you to be a Tory stalwart. Perhaps you can be persuaded to return to the fold if and when there is a new leader.Casino_Royale said:
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.TheScreamingEagles said:
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.Socrates said:
Do you think all immigration is good?TheScreamingEagles said:
No directly.Speedy said:
What's the reason? UKIP?TheScreamingEagles said:A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
Meanwhile hopefully the blues will receive your vote next May as being the least of several evils.
0 -
cricket - England heap it all on Buttler again
0 -
UKIP don't want to pull up the drawbridge. They want to go back to balanced, sensible levels of immigration seen in the 1990s. As for other areas, they want a trading agreement, a collective defence agreement and case by case co-operation on other matters. That's the sensible middle ground. Everyone else is offering EU federalism at a faster or slower pace.MarkHopkins said:
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
If there a middle ground?
Is any party proposing it?0 -
Well theyve gone from 4% to 26% in Newark, so UI think youve got that wrongTGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.0 -
No it doesn't. No one who knew anything about the constituency seriously thought UKIP had any chance of winning. As such Newark currently says nothing at all about what is happening to the UKIP vote.TGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.0 -
Given how unfavourable to UKIP's demography Newark sounds their polling is higher than I thought it'd be.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it doesn't. No one who knew anything about the constituency seriously thought UKIP had any chance of winning. As such Newark currently says nothing at all about what is happening to the UKIP vote.TGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.
I think there is a fair chance that UKIP could have a whole heap of second places come GE2015 in safe seats both Labour and Conservative.
Doncaster, Newark, Newbury, Rotherham etc.0 -
Are the cricket highlights being shown on one of the non-satellite channels?0
-
@edmundintokyo
But the analogy breaks down because the public aren't idiots. They have their biases, but the trap that establishment types fall into is that the public are just all prejudiced neanderthals while their own views are perfectly sensible, despite the fact they've never tested their own views that much. Here the EU is a classic case. Most MPs - and most of the London professional class - believe it would be an economic disaster to leave the EU. In reality, most studies show that it's a fairly close run thing whether it would be a net positive or a net negative. Wealthy, successful people have just as much bias in their political views as the working man does. Their thinking is not about a systematic examination of the evidence. It's about subconsciously buying into the positions that are associated with people like them, and then hearing the evidence that backs up their position and rejecting out of hand arguments or evidence that go against it.0 -
Some interesting ideas, but UKIP are lead by the wrong people, and have attracted some even odder and nastier members.Socrates said:
UKIP don't want to pull up the drawbridge. They want to go back to balanced, sensible levels of immigration seen in the 1990s. As for other areas, they want a trading agreement, a collective defence agreement and case by case co-operation on other matters. That's the sensible middle ground. Everyone else is offering EU federalism at a faster or slower pace.MarkHopkins said:
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
If there a middle ground?
Is any party proposing it?
Until that changes, forget it.0 -
The Conservatives would like to change many things but cannot do so without changes to the law . Laws cannot be changed without a majority in parliament, so the best approach is incremental change and building alliances where possible. Kippers in particular think that you just throw a switch and everything reverts to their vision. Kippers in particular want to leave the EU but have provided no discussion on what scenarios would arise.Richard_Nabavi said:
I've never suggested ignoring it. However, reality is reality: the way to improve things is by making steady progress on the economy, on education, on reforming the EU, on Welfare, and none of that can be done quickly. Sure, we could use the Blair approach of ignoring the fundamentals and concentrating on getting favourable headlines, and maybe if the Conservatives' only concern was re-election, that might be a good approach, although I rather suspect the public wouldn't fall for it a second time.HurstLlama said:
Yes, it is possible to deal with angry people lots of people in the public sector and customer service do it every day. In each successful interaction you will find one thing, the person dealing with the situation acknowledges the anger.
In politics, if you think that the Conservatives can just ignore those angry people, tell them that they are wrong, and still expect them to vote Conservative then be prepared for opposition next year or find some other electorate that will vote for you.
My point is more that, if people are angry now, how are they going to be under PM Miliband? A hell of a sight angrier is my guess, like Hollande's erstwhile supporters. At least with the Tories they were told things were going to be tough and there were no facile solutions.
0 -
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.0 -
Places like Rotherham have strongly turned against the establishment parties because they have seen how child sex slavery cases weren't properly investigated because of political correctness. The local media coverage in these places has been very effective at showing what went wrong, and people are very angry about it. This is why the BBC and the rest of the national media did their best to sweep the whole thing under the carpet.Pulpstar said:
Given how unfavourable to UKIP's demography Newark sounds their polling is higher than I thought it'd be.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it doesn't. No one who knew anything about the constituency seriously thought UKIP had any chance of winning. As such Newark currently says nothing at all about what is happening to the UKIP vote.TGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.
I think there is a fair chance that UKIP could have a whole heap of second places come GE2015 in safe seats both Labour and Conservative.
Doncaster, Newark, Newbury, Rotherham etc.0 -
It's not impossible that UKIP could win seats from all three of Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives - say Rotherham, Eastleigh and South Thanet.Pulpstar said:
Given how unfavourable to UKIP's demography Newark sounds their polling is higher than I thought it'd be.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it doesn't. No one who knew anything about the constituency seriously thought UKIP had any chance of winning. As such Newark currently says nothing at all about what is happening to the UKIP vote.TGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.
I think there is a fair chance that UKIP could have a whole heap of second places come GE2015 in safe seats both Labour and Conservative.
Doncaster, Newark, Newbury, Rotherham etc.
It reminds me of the arguments there used to be about whether the Lib Dems should target Conservative-held seats or Labour-held seats for gains in 2005. UKIP's appeal cuts across the old boundaries and will doubtless create new ones. Antifrank has done some great work in identifying where these new electoral boundaries are, which may help many PBers enjoy a profitable GE2015.0 -
Show me 2nd place and I'll show you a loser.isam said:
Well theyve gone from 4% to 26% in Newark, so UI think youve got that wrongTGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.
The economy will do for Ukip - it's ticking along nicely and they have nothing to say on it other than "less fuzzy wuzzies" and "blame Brussels".
0 -
corporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
I didn't see any Lib Dem considering they could go down to 1 MEP.
I plumped for 2, from the general thinking on here I thought it was far more likely to be a loser on the low rather than the high side.
0 -
Every political party in this country has some wrong people in the leadership, and has a fair few nutters floating around as council candidates. The difference is that the BBC and others haven't done a full throated attack on the other parties, highlighting every case of some low level idiot being unpleasant, and deliberately taking off the hand comments out of context.TheWatcher said:
Some interesting ideas, but UKIP are lead by the wrong people, and have attracted some even odder and nastier members.Socrates said:
UKIP don't want to pull up the drawbridge. They want to go back to balanced, sensible levels of immigration seen in the 1990s. As for other areas, they want a trading agreement, a collective defence agreement and case by case co-operation on other matters. That's the sensible middle ground. Everyone else is offering EU federalism at a faster or slower pace.MarkHopkins said:
Surely there has to be a middle ground between UKIP's "pull-up the drawbridge and haul Britain off into the Atlantic" idea and the other extreme of "full EU federalism and completely free movement of people no matter the consequences".
If there a middle ground?
Is any party proposing it?
Until that changes, forget it.0 -
Latest Betfair odds, Newark:
Con 1.1
UKIP 9.4
Lab 100
LD 1000
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.1139862280 -
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
I think its funny to be honest, and must be a bit of a trolling joke to get Kippers commenting I reckon. If not Im a bit embarrassed for Mike that he is so obviously biased (see the PEB mistake) but its good for a laugh, and doesnt change anything in the real world
0 -
I'm not trying to make a point about the EU specifically - I don't think we're going to agree on whether the elites are really mistaken about that one, and it's been done plenty here before. Actually I think it applies more obviously to the effects of immigration on employment - intuitively people believe in the Lump of Labour fallacy, but it's a fallacy - but you could also apply it to a lot of government quick-fixes like energy price caps that divide the intuitions of the voters, that they're being exploited and something can be done about it fast, from the considered, well-researched view of people who think carefully about it, that this particular thing won't help.Socrates said:@edmundintokyo
But the analogy breaks down because the public aren't idiots. They have their biases, but the trap that establishment types fall into is that the public are just all prejudiced neanderthals while their own views are perfectly sensible, despite the fact they've never tested their own views that much. Here the EU is a classic case. Most MPs - and most of the London professional class - believe it would be an economic disaster to leave the EU. In reality, most studies show that it's a fairly close run thing whether it would be a net positive or a net negative. Wealthy, successful people have just as much bias in their political views as the working man does. Their thinking is not about a systematic examination of the evidence. It's about subconsciously buying into the positions that are associated with people like them, and then hearing the evidence that backs up their position and rejecting out of hand arguments or evidence that go against it.
Obviously if we knew the voters were always right about everything it would be an easy call for the politicians, because whenever their diagnosis differed from what the voters thought they could just do what the voters wanted and everything would work out fine, but sadly life isn't really that simple.0 -
Peterborough won the Johnston's Paint Trophy - they didn't get promoted - good season ?isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
0 -
Portsmouth arent comparable to UKIP as they are a side who were in the top division and won the FA Cup in the last 5-6 years.TGOHF said:
Portsmouth won the Johnston's Paint Trophy - they didn't get promoted - good season ?isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
If a team that had never won anything or been promoted before won the JPT it would be a good season, yes
0 -
Labour's just been matched at 1000...AndyJS said:Latest Betfair odds, Newark:
Con 1.1
UKIP 9.4
Lab 100
LD 1000
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.1139862280 -
I think there's more than just policy solutions being "right" or "wrong". A lot of stuff just depends on values. Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot. The elite (best demonstrated on this board by NPXMP and rcs) value diverse experiences and ease of travel opportunities more instead. If your goals are different then you'll want different policies to achieve them. The point of democracy was to align the views of the governing class with those of the people, but something has badly broken down and they are now very different groups, with different values. And the problem is that the elite is self-selecting. The people now running the Labour and Conservative parties wouldn't want working class eurosceptic people as candidates, because they don't like euroscepticism. So they get blocked in selection hearings. The only thing that can solve this refusal of the main parties to represent the people is for the people to vote for new parties that do.edmundintokyo said:
Obviously if we knew the voters were always right about everything it would be an easy call for the politicians, because whenever their diagnosis differed from what the voters thought they could just do what the voters wanted and everything would work out fine, but sadly life isn't really that simple.0 -
I think it's jolly generous of Socrates and isam to allow Mike Smithson to write so many leading comments on their blog.0
-
Really? Because I'm looking at the two threads that went up as soon as we had any results.isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:BobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
I think its funny to be honest, and must be a bit of a trolling joke to get Kippers commenting I reckon. If not Im a bit embarrassed for Mike that he is so obviously biased (see the PEB mistake) but its good for a laugh, and doesnt change anything in the real world
First one's titled "As results start to come in it's a great night for UKIP"
Second one is headlined "Results Summary" and starts with a big graph that has a purple bar larger than anything else (and then at the bottom a comparison with the pollsters, since that's what we do here, and is the relative to expectations etc).
Then the Lib Dem Oaksh*tt stuff hit the fan and it's been that, Newark (oh and a thread on the ComRes poll showing the UKIP vote holding up).0 -
Yeah TSE wrote the first one. I almost missed that toocorporeal said:
Really? Because I'm looking at the two threads that went up as soon as we had any results.isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:BobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
I think its funny to be honest, and must be a bit of a trolling joke to get Kippers commenting I reckon. If not Im a bit embarrassed for Mike that he is so obviously biased (see the PEB mistake) but its good for a laugh, and doesnt change anything in the real world
First one's titled "As results start to come in it's a great night for UKIP"
Second one is headlined "Results Summary" and starts with a big graph that has a purple bar larger than anything else (and then at the bottom a comparison with the pollsters, since that's what we do here, and is the relative to expectations etc).
Then the Lib Dem Oaksh*tt stuff hit the fan and it's been that, Newark (oh and a thread on the ComRes poll showing the UKIP vote holding up).
Purple bit bigger than the rest on a graph where purples got most votes, well I never! How impartial, I take it all back
Mike hates UKIP and it show in his threads, I am not complaining as I say. It is his site he can write what he likes. I just answered :@bobafett's post.
0 -
@edmundintokyo
Also, the tendency to believe in simplified macroeconomic models doesn't make you more 'correct'. Take something like construction work. Here, lump of labour very clearly does exist. The amount of construction work happening isn't a free market - it is dramatically held back by the amount of space we feel comfortable being built on. If the population goes up by 10% due to unskilled migration, we might only get 5% more construction work. Thus the increase in construction workers does genuinely mean more competition for construction jobs.
There's also the fact that simple econ 101 models assume all workers are the same. In reality, they have different skill and income levels. Thus low income, low skill workers coming over might increase the class of low income, low skill workers by 20%. But because they are low income, they spend a lot less than the average person in the UK economy, so their collective extra consumption might only increase UK consumption (and extra demand for jobs) by 10%. Then the lump of labour fallacy actually holds true once again.
These are just two examples of how the "intuitions" of the elite can be just as mistaken as the "intuitions" of the working class. Often a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - well-read metropolitan types read papers like the Guardian which gives them just enough arguments to confirm their prejudices without them ever getting into the detail of an issue.0 -
next general election Betfair
NOM 2.34
Lab 3.3
Con 3.850 -
@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.0 -
This is in response to us saying it's his blog and he can write what he wants?frpenkridge said:I think it's jolly generous of Socrates and isam to allow Mike Smithson to write so many leading comments on their blog.
0 -
What do they get to paint .... Stewart Jackson's home ?!?TGOHF said:
Peterborough won the Johnston's Paint Trophy - they didn't get promoted - good season ?isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
0 -
The Posh have rarely done better, so obviously a good season.TGOHF said:
Peterborough won the Johnston's Paint Trophy - they didn't get promoted - good season ?isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
Likewise with UKIP - breaking the century long duopoly of Labour and Tories in national elections not impressive enough for you?0 -
I am sure it said Portsmouth when I replied to it?!OblitusSumMe said:
The Posh have rarely done better, so obviously a good season.TGOHF said:
Peterborough won the Johnston's Paint Trophy - they didn't get promoted - good season ?isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:
This site belongs to a pro EU, pro immigration Lib Dem whose party is being humiliated while a party that he fundamentally disagrees with is surging in the polls and winning national electionsBobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I complained before, but was told, quite rightly, that it is Mike's site and he can edit it how he pleases, with no need to be fair or impartial
And so he does
So I am not complaining, just saying to expect different is to expect The Guardian to endorse UKIP or The Mail to say "vote Green"
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
Likewise with UKIP - breaking the century long duopoly of Labour and Tories in national elections not impressive enough for you?
Bit shifty changing the team to fit the argument!
0 -
Clearly reality is more complicated than simple macroeconomic models but in this case I don't think you've correctly understood the models...Socrates said:@edmundintokyo
Also, the tendency to believe in simplified macroeconomic models doesn't make you more 'correct'. Take something like construction work. Here, lump of labour very clearly does exist. The amount of construction work happening isn't a free market - it is dramatically held back by the amount of space we feel comfortable being built on. If the population goes up by 10% due to unskilled migration, we might only get 5% more construction work. Thus the increase in construction workers does genuinely mean more competition for construction jobs.
There's also the fact that simple econ 101 models assume all workers are the same. In reality, they have different skill and income levels. Thus low income, low skill workers coming over might increase the class of low income, low skill workers by 20%. But because they are low income, they spend a lot less than the average person in the UK economy, so their collective extra consumption might only increase UK consumption (and extra demand for jobs) by 10%. Then the lump of labour fallacy actually holds true once again.
These are just two examples of how the "intuitions" of the elite can be just as mistaken as the "intuitions" of the working class. Often a little knowledge is a dangerous thing - well-read metropolitan types read papers like the Guardian which gives them just enough arguments to confirm their prejudices without them ever getting into the detail of an issue.0 -
Really?Socrates said:Take something like construction work. Here, lump of labour very clearly does exist.
If I can get my extension completed for £50,000, it's not worth my while.
If I can get it done for £35,000, it is.
Demand for construction is price elastic, and I can point you in the direction of no end of economic articles to demonstrate that if you'd like.0 -
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.0 -
Add Egypt, South Africa, Mauritius, maybe East Indies, South America, and plenty of commerce raiding all over the world too.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But there was fighting pretty much all over the world:HurstLlama said:
Quibbling indeed, Mr. Me. The proposition put forward was that every time we had a monarch called George there was a major world war. George IV became monarch in 1820 the Napoleonic wars finished in 1815. Further, I would dispute that the Napoleonic wars in either scope or effect matched the world wars of the 20th century. They might have been pretty ghastly for the time but even then they weren't the worst the world had ever seen (see for example the effects of the 30 years war).OblitusSumMe said:
Quibbling perhaps, but George IV was Regent during the latter period of the Napoleonic Wars which stand comparison with the numbered World Wars of the 20th century.HurstLlama said:"... everytime Britain had a George as King there was a major world war."
Hmmmm, really? Even if you want to classify the Anglo-French wars as major world wars, which must at least be debatable, your argument falls with one counter example George IV. For all his faults, the UK was not involved in one war whilst he was on the throne, in fact his reign was the start of a period of peace and prosperity (aside from the usual squabbles) that lasted for nearly a century. The really nasty wars happened after real power had been stolen from the monarchs and given to politicians elected by the people.
Egypt, India, Ceylon, Indonesia, the Caribbean, N. America, as well as in Europe naturally!
0 -
A good deal of the Conservative response to UKIP is to try and be more PC than thou. So, sneers are thrown at UKIP for being largely white, working class, and aged 40+, as if those are somehow reprehensible characteristics. Or else, trying to make an impassioned case for mass immigration and diversity, when they've spent decades opposing them.
None of this really works. There's nothing more embarassing than a Conservative who's trying to be PC.0 -
Yes - up for that. Any day next week except Wednesday is good for me. I am working on getting Malcolm down again before he needs a passport!Alanbrooke said:
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.
0 -
@Sean_F - There's nothing more embarassing than a Conservative who's trying to be PC.
Yes,. there is: EdM trying to sound tough on immigration.0 -
You implied it was a throw in mentioned in the context of pollsters predicting better, when it was the lead part of the thread.isam said:
Yeah TSE wrote the first one. I almost missed that toocorporeal said:
Really? Because I'm looking at the two threads that went up as soon as we had any results.isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:BobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
I think its funny to be honest, and must be a bit of a trolling joke to get Kippers commenting I reckon. If not Im a bit embarrassed for Mike that he is so obviously biased (see the PEB mistake) but its good for a laugh, and doesnt change anything in the real world
First one's titled "As results start to come in it's a great night for UKIP"
Second one is headlined "Results Summary" and starts with a big graph that has a purple bar larger than anything else (and then at the bottom a comparison with the pollsters, since that's what we do here, and is the relative to expectations etc).
Then the Lib Dem Oaksh*tt stuff hit the fan and it's been that, Newark (oh and a thread on the ComRes poll showing the UKIP vote holding up).
Purple bit bigger than the rest on a graph where purples got most votes, well I never! How impartial, I take it all back
Mike hates UKIP and it show in his threads, I am not complaining as I say. It is his site he can write what he likes. I just answered :@bobafett's post.
If things had gone differently we'd probably have gone longer on it, but it got overtaken by the newscycle of the attempt to remove Clegg and now Newark.
Yesterday was a thread about TSE saying he thinks UKIP's vote will hold up better at the GE.0 -
Of course there is some elasticity to construction work. But you're making the basic mistake of thinking that because an effect exists, it is the primary one to understand the situation. The question isn't whether more immigrants make more construction work occur - it does, and I clearly said this in my post. It's whether the increase in construction work available is greater or smaller than the increase in the construction work force. If it is smaller than indigenous construction workers have been harmed by immigration.rcs1000 said:
Really?Socrates said:Take something like construction work. Here, lump of labour very clearly does exist.
If I can get my extension completed for £50,000, it's not worth my while.
If I can get it done for £35,000, it is.
Demand for construction is price elastic, and I can point you in the direction of no end of economic articles to demonstrate that if you'd like.
(Looking up the precise definition of 'lump of labour' reveals I may have worded my post poorly. But the point I was driving at stands.)0 -
I've voted Conservative in every election since 1979. Shan't do so again.
I don't think my views have changed particularly radically - I've always been socially liberal / financially conservative.
This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
In one way, a Milliband administration would be preferable; it'd likely spook the markets and introduce some external discipline into the national finances (I should hasten to add that I'm not wedded to that argument!).
In terms of immigration and EU reform; I think that many commentators are willful and deliberately conflate anti-immigrant and anti mass-immigration, in the same way that Cameron appears to conflate 'debt' and 'deficit'.
I don't think my views on UKIP have changed much between 2009 and now; I'm moderately pleased that they seem to be provoking some of the long overdue debates we need to have about both immigration and integration.
0 -
Shall we go for Wed or Thurs next week I'll check with Sunil ?SouthamObserver said:
Yes - up for that. Any day next week except Wednesday is good for me. I am working on getting Malcolm down again before he needs a passport!Alanbrooke said:
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.0 -
Eastleigh is unlikely for UKIP, 2014 Local Election results:OblitusSumMe said:
It's not impossible that UKIP could win seats from all three of Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives - say Rotherham, Eastleigh and South Thanet.Pulpstar said:
Given how unfavourable to UKIP's demography Newark sounds their polling is higher than I thought it'd be.Richard_Tyndall said:
No it doesn't. No one who knew anything about the constituency seriously thought UKIP had any chance of winning. As such Newark currently says nothing at all about what is happening to the UKIP vote.TGOHF said:
Weekend Newark polls suggest Ukip have failed to continue their recent upsurge.BobaFett said:
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
Polling scores don't count for much in the end - as Ed Miliband is finding out.
I think there is a fair chance that UKIP could have a whole heap of second places come GE2015 in safe seats both Labour and Conservative.
Doncaster, Newark, Newbury, Rotherham etc.
It reminds me of the arguments there used to be about whether the Lib Dems should target Conservative-held seats or Labour-held seats for gains in 2005. UKIP's appeal cuts across the old boundaries and will doubtless create new ones. Antifrank has done some great work in identifying where these new electoral boundaries are, which may help many PBers enjoy a profitable GE2015.
12 Lib Dem Holds
1 Lib Dem Gain
2 Conservative Holds
They did well at the By-Election in Eastleigh, but By-Elections are different.0 -
Can't do Wednesday, so let's shoot for Thursday.Alanbrooke said:
Shall we go for Wed or Thurs next week I'll check with Sunil ?SouthamObserver said:
Yes - up for that. Any day next week except Wednesday is good for me. I am working on getting Malcolm down again before he needs a passport!Alanbrooke said:
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.
0 -
I sint imly anything, I just pointed out that when the EU results were confirmed, the only mention Mike made of UKIP in the thread header was that they performed worse than the polls predicted, and he lost on his bets. That is a factcorporeal said:
You implied it was a throw in mentioned in the context of pollsters predicting better, when it was the lead part of the thread.isam said:
Yeah TSE wrote the first one. I almost missed that toocorporeal said:
Really? Because I'm looking at the two threads that went up as soon as we had any results.isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
It's partially a case of relative to expectations, partially we're now getting more data on them. In the past we've done articles about the rise of UKIP, now people are hyping them up and setting higher expectations we're rather coming back the other way.isam said:BobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
As for the Lib Dems
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.
I think its funny to be honest, and must be a bit of a trolling joke to get Kippers commenting I reckon. If not Im a bit embarrassed for Mike that he is so obviously biased (see the PEB mistake) but its good for a laugh, and doesnt change anything in the real world
First one's titled "As results start to come in it's a great night for UKIP"
Second one is headlined "Results Summary" and starts with a big graph that has a purple bar larger than anything else (and then at the bottom a comparison with the pollsters, since that's what we do here, and is the relative to expectations etc).
Then the Lib Dem Oaksh*tt stuff hit the fan and it's been that, Newark (oh and a thread on the ComRes poll showing the UKIP vote holding up).
Purple bit bigger than the rest on a graph where purples got most votes, well I never! How impartial, I take it all back
Mike hates UKIP and it show in his threads, I am not complaining as I say. It is his site he can write what he likes. I just answered :@bobafett's post.
If things had gone differently we'd probably have gone longer on it, but it got overtaken by the newscycle of the attempt to remove Clegg and now Newark.
0 -
WTF. That's NOT cricket.0
-
Apols I meant Tuesday. I've hit the G&T early !SouthamObserver said:
Can't do Wednesday, so let's shoot for Thursday.Alanbrooke said:
Shall we go for Wed or Thurs next week I'll check with Sunil ?SouthamObserver said:
Yes - up for that. Any day next week except Wednesday is good for me. I am working on getting Malcolm down again before he needs a passport!Alanbrooke said:
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.0 -
Nick Clegg and Vince Cable start practising for their new jobs after 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27680008
;-)
0 -
I don't think it is as specific as attaching it to particular practices. I'm talking about culture in the more intangible sense. The sort of cultural norms you pick up on if you go and speak to a bunch of English people, and then go and speak to a bunch of Italians. There are certain sensibilities, manners, humour etc that people feel at home around. If they feel there is huge immigration to their area, they feel less comfortable and more alienated in their own country. I am not advocating for a party to prescribe precisely what that culture is. I'm just advocating for governments to stop screwing with that culture through mass immigration.SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.0 -
Nah. Cleggy will be straight back on the Euro Gravy Train with Farage. Toot Toot!MarkHopkins said:Nick Clegg and Vince Cable start practising for their new jobs after 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27680008
;-)0 -
While indigenous construction workers have been "harmed", the consumers of construction (both the companies and the users of said construction) will have benefited from the lower cost of construction.Socrates said:
Of course there is some elasticity to construction work. But you're making the basic mistake of thinking that because an effect exists, it is the primary one to understand the situation. The question isn't whether more immigrants make more construction work occur - it does, and I clearly said this in my post. It's whether the increase in construction work available is greater or smaller than the increase in the construction work force. If it is smaller than indigenous construction workers have been harmed by immigration.rcs1000 said:
Really?Socrates said:Take something like construction work. Here, lump of labour very clearly does exist.
If I can get my extension completed for £50,000, it's not worth my while.
If I can get it done for £35,000, it is.
Demand for construction is price elastic, and I can point you in the direction of no end of economic articles to demonstrate that if you'd like.
(Looking up the precise definition of 'lump of labour' reveals I may have worded my post poorly. But the point I was driving at stands.)
Mrs Thatcher famously said (and I'm quoting from memory here): I always hear people say, think of the producers. I say, think of the consumers.
Just as a new machine that - say - reduced the amount of skill required to make cotton clothing would be bad for cotton workers, it would be good for the consumers of cotton.
I find this obsession with producer protection bizarre.0 -
The Headlines on PB when it was confirmed UKIP won the Euros, becoming the first party other than Labour or Conservative to win a national election in a century
"CON did better than virtually all the polls while Ukip did worse
The broad trend was in line with what I’d predicted though my bets on Ukip not making it top place were losers.
AIFE took about 2% in most regions where they stood
Undoubtedly this cost Ukip votes. The 2% was exactly in line with my prediction.
A dire, dire result for Lib Dems and Nick Clegg
Who know what will happen?"0 -
In 2009 I didn't have very strong opinions about UKIP other than a mild dislike.
In 2014 I find UKIP utterly repulsive - and the more I see of them (and of Nigel Farage in particular) the more strongly I feel myself taking against them.
0 -
Did he warn him before doing it?Anorak said:
Buttler out as Senanayake aborts his run up and catches him out of his crease, at the non-strikers end. Tsk.Anorak said:WTF. That's NOT cricket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR6CVeVZzOY
Non strikers shouldn't take liberties with the crease.0 -
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.John_M said:This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
0 -
You're not counting graphs as mentions?isam said:
I sint imly anything, I just pointed out that when the EU results were confirmed, the only mention Mike made of UKIP in the thread header was that they performed worse than the polls predicted, and he lost on his bets. That is a factcorporeal said:
You implied it was a throw in mentioned in the context of pollsters predicting better, when it was the lead part of the thread.isam said:
Yeah TSE wrote the first one. I almost missed that toocorporeal said:
Really? Because I'm looking at the two threads that went up as soon as we had any results.isam said:
UKIP won the Euro elections last Sunday and the only mention of it in Mike's Headline was to mention that they performed worse than the pollsters predictedcorporeal said:
We all have our biases and I'm sure they shine through in our writing, but if there's a "UKIP are crap" agenda I haven't been told about it. You try and write what you see.isam said:BobaFett said:It must be time for a Dave is Crap thread, given recent polling.
I have to say that focus on Ukip being crap seems odd, given recent polling.
I think its funny to be honest, and must be a bit of a trolling joke to get Kippers commenting I reckon. If not Im a bit embarrassed for Mike that he is so obviously biased (see the PEB mistake) but its good for a laugh, and doesnt change anything in the real world
First one's titled "As results start to come in it's a great night for UKIP"
Second one is headlined "Results Summary" and starts with a big graph that has a purple bar larger than anything else (and then at the bottom a comparison with the pollsters, since that's what we do here, and is the relative to expectations etc).
Then the Lib Dem Oaksh*tt stuff hit the fan and it's been that, Newark (oh and a thread on the ComRes poll showing the UKIP vote holding up).
Purple bit bigger than the rest on a graph where purples got most votes, well I never! How impartial, I take it all back
Mike hates UKIP and it show in his threads, I am not complaining as I say. It is his site he can write what he likes. I just answered :@bobafett's post.
If things had gone differently we'd probably have gone longer on it, but it got overtaken by the newscycle of the attempt to remove Clegg and now Newark.
Go look back over the recent threads, there's more "UKIP doing well" threads than "UKIP are crap" threads.0 -
If the cricinfo version is correct, Butler is bang to rights.0
-
To be fair, he did warn him.Pulpstar said:
Did he warn him before doing it?Anorak said:
Buttler out as Senanayake aborts his run up and catches him out of his crease, at the non-strikers end. Tsk.Anorak said:WTF. That's NOT cricket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR6CVeVZzOY
Non strikers shouldn't take liberties with the crease.
The incident:
twitter.com/SkyCricket/status/473858563455332352/photo/10 -
Was that the last chance saloon? There are probably beers there that have a greater percentage than the Lib Dems look like getting in Newark.MarkHopkins said:Nick Clegg and Vince Cable start practising for their new jobs after 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27680008
;-)0 -
B'locksToryJim said:
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.John_M said:This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
Osborne has done little on economic reform.
Why do Blues give him credit when this is the slowest recovery ever.
The economy has recovered on its own steam, GO has bugger all to do with it but is trying to claim the credit. It's like Brown's golden touch in 1998 when Ken Clarke did all the work.0 -
-
GO is claiming the credit for Brown's good work?Alanbrooke said:
B'locksToryJim said:
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.John_M said:This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
Osborne has done little on economic reform.
Why do Blues give him credit when this is the slowest recovery ever.
The economy has recovered on its own steam, GO has bugger all to do with it but is trying to claim the credit. It's like Brown's golden touch in 1998 when Ken Clarke did all the work.
Just how much gin have you had?0 -
OK - I see where you are coming from, but I would argue that the biggest cultural changes in this country among the indigenous population (for want of a better term) have not been caused by mass immigration but by mass deindustrialisation. That killed off far more communities than immigration may have done. Whole ways of life disappeared as heavy industry declined - from the shipyards in Glasgow, Sunderland and Belfast to the mining communities of Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, by way of the docks in London and Liverpool and the huge car factories in Dagenham, Coventry, Oxford and Brum. Before that there were the slum clearances of the 50s, 60s and early 70s. By and large immigrants have moved into areas that had already undergone major changes, had become very run down and so very affordable.Socrates said:
I don't think it is as specific as attaching it to particular practices. I'm talking about culture in the more intangible sense. The sort of cultural norms you pick up on if you go and speak to a bunch of English people, and then go and speak to a bunch of Italians. There are certain sensibilities, manners, humour etc that people feel at home around. If they feel there is huge immigration to their area, they feel less comfortable and more alienated in their own country. I am not advocating for a party to prescribe precisely what that culture is. I'm just advocating for governments to stop screwing with that culture through mass immigration.SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.
Even on thing such as sensibilities, manners and humour there are huge generational differences that have nothing to do with immigration. The twitter and internet generations have a very different way of interacting with each other than had their predecessors. I don't think my mother-in-law would find Russell Brand that funny, while my kids would sit through half an hour of Keeping Up Appearances with blank faces while their Nan weed herself.
0 -
Quite extraordinary spin. In the Emergency Budget of 2010, HM Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his policies would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, he set a fiscal mandate that net government debt would be falling as a proportion of gross national product by 2013-2014. It seems that the Chancellor was coming up with 'risible' ideas.ToryJim said:The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.
0 -
corporeal said:
Jesus mate!isam said:
You're not counting graphs as mentions?corporeal said:
I sint imly anything, I just pointed out that when the EU results were confirmed, the only mention Mike made of UKIP in the thread header was that they performed worse than the polls predicted, and he lost on his bets. That is a factisam said:
You implied it was a throw in mentioned in the context of pollsters predicting better, when it was the lead part of the thread.corporeal said:
Yeah TSE wrote the first one. I almost missed that tooisam said:
Really? Because I'm looking at the two threads that went up as soon as we had any results.corporeal said:
First one's titled "As results start to come in it's a great night for UKIP"
Second one is headlined "Results Summary" and starts with a big graph that has a purple bar larger than anything else (and then at the bottom a comparison with the pollsters, since that's what we do here, and is the relative to expectations etc).
Then the Lib Dem Oaksh*tt stuff hit the fan and it's been that, Newark (oh and a thread on the ComRes poll showing the UKIP vote holding up).
Purple bit bigger than the rest on a graph where purples got most votes, well I never! How impartial, I take it all back
Mike hates UKIP and it show in his threads, I am not complaining as I say. It is his site he can write what he likes. I just answered :@bobafett's post.
If things had gone differently we'd probably have gone longer on it, but it got overtaken by the newscycle of the attempt to remove Clegg and now Newark.
Go look back over the recent threads, there's more "UKIP doing well" threads than "UKIP are crap" threads.
I am not complaining about Mike's anti UKIP bias, I am just aware of it. It is his site and he can write what he likes, better that than no site.Others have said the same when I mentioned it before.
But please dont try and make out that the bias isnt there.
It is only Mike I am referring to, not TSE or whoever else writes the threads sometimes.
Personally if I was writing a politics site and a result of an election came in I could bring myself to write, "Well done to ___ on winning", especially if it was their first win, and no one else had won an election for a century.0 -
Ha, ha. Either is good for me. See what Sunil says.Alanbrooke said:
Apols I meant Tuesday. I've hit the G&T early !SouthamObserver said:
Can't do Wednesday, so let's shoot for Thursday.Alanbrooke said:
Shall we go for Wed or Thurs next week I'll check with Sunil ?SouthamObserver said:
Yes - up for that. Any day next week except Wednesday is good for me. I am working on getting Malcolm down again before he needs a passport!Alanbrooke said:
SO are you around over the next fortnight or so. I'd like to take Dr Sunil for a beer. I'm happy to chauffer and pick you up. Nice Warks country pub grab you ?SouthamObserver said:@Socrates - "Most people in the country value British culture and traditional communities a lot."
Is that really true? I don't see many people marching in favour of retaining rural bus services or hunting with dogs outside of the areas affected. Most people in the country also seemed pretty happy to let communities built around heavy industry and trade unions fade away. I suspect that the views of a UKIP-voting pensioner about what constitutes British culture are very different to those of an 18 year-old who votes Green. I would be very suspicious of any party that started proscribing what should be considered British culture and what should not.
0 -
The rarity of the dismissal, and the commonality of backing up, show that the dismissal was well outside the spirit of the game, even if technically within the rules.Richard_Tyndall said:
The law states that you can only be run out backing up if you 'attempt to steal a run'. In this case, Buttler wasn't, IMO.0 -
It's not cricket. You don't do that unless the non striker is charging down the wicket.
England should now seek to run out half the Sri Lankan team in similar circumstances and ensure the umpires have the stopwatch out after each wicket for timed out decisions. They might like to consider appealing for handled ball if the batsman picks up one he drops by his feet as well.
If we are not playing cricket, let's stuff them with things that are 'in the rules'.0 -
less than you evidently :-)Anorak said:
GO is claiming the credit for Brown's good work?Alanbrooke said:
B'locksToryJim said:
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.John_M said:This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
Osborne has done little on economic reform.
Why do Blues give him credit when this is the slowest recovery ever.
The economy has recovered on its own steam, GO has bugger all to do with it but is trying to claim the credit. It's like Brown's golden touch in 1998 when Ken Clarke did all the work.
Just how much gin have you had?
GO is claimi8ng the credit for the natural economic cycle, he has done lttle to place the UK in the growth lane. His contribution is negligible. Tories seem to want to say Osborne is a genius just because he hasn't made a complete horlicks like Brown.
Why should we give credit just because the CoE isn't totally incompetent ? Shouldn't that be expected anyeay ?0 -
@dyedwoolie
It's not cricket to stand your ground after obviously clipping the ball to a fielder, unless of course you are English?0 -
No, it's not. A gentleman walks.Smarmeron said:@dyedwoolie
It's not cricket to stand your ground after obviously clipping the ball to a fielder, unless of course you are English?
It's not the English that have an endemic cheating problem.0 -
No one seemed particularly unhappy about it during the ashes test, except for those Aussie ruffians. "Rules of the game" and "within his rights" were the common quotes0
-
I'm prepared to cut Ozzie some slack on the speed of deficit reduction. Part responsible was the v miserable EU growth which was not easily forecast (unless you are a deep sceptic in which case it would have been obvious:))Life_ina_market_town said:
Quite extraordinary spin. In the Emergency Budget of 2010, HM Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his policies would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, he set a fiscal mandate that net government debt would be falling as a proportion of gross national product by 2013-2014. It seems that the Chancellor was coming up with 'risible' ideas.ToryJim said:The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.
0 -
He warned him first. A yard extra out of the crease is a yard less you have to run for a quick single.dyedwoolie said:It's not cricket. You don't do that unless the non striker is charging down the wicket.
England should now seek to run out half the Sri Lankan team in similar circumstances and ensure the umpires have the stopwatch out after each wicket for timed out decisions. They might like to consider appealing for handled ball if the batsman picks up one he drops by his feet as well.
If we are not playing cricket, let's stuff them with things that are 'in the rules'.0 -
Does it:Anorak said:
The rarity of the dismissal, and the commonality of backing up, show that the dismissal was well outside the spirit of the game, even if technically within the rules.Richard_Tyndall said:
The law states that you can only be run out backing up if you 'attempt to steal a run'. In this case, Buttler wasn't, IMO.
Law 42
15. Bowler attempting to run out non-striker before delivery
The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. Whether the attempt is successful or not, the ball shall not count as one of the over.
If the bowler fails in an attempt to run out the non-striker, the umpire shall call and signal Dead ball as soon as possible.
No mention of stealing in there.0 -
I think he's given the markets confidence in the UK, and eased us through the pain. He was never going to satisfy your desire for a draconian slashing of expenditure - and to have attempted it would have brought the government down very messily.Alanbrooke said:
less than you evidently :-)Anorak said:
GO is claiming the credit for Brown's good work?Alanbrooke said:
B'locksToryJim said:
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.John_M said:This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
Osborne has done little on economic reform.
Why do Blues give him credit when this is the slowest recovery ever.
The economy has recovered on its own steam, GO has bugger all to do with it but is trying to claim the credit. It's like Brown's golden touch in 1998 when Ken Clarke did all the work.
Just how much gin have you had?
GO is claimi8ng the credit for the natural economic cycle, he has done lttle to place the UK in the growth lane. His contribution is negligible. Tories seem to want to say Osborne is a genius just because he hasn't made a complete horlicks like Brown.
Why should we give credit just because the CoE isn't totally incompetent ? Shouldn't that be expected anyeay ?
Anyway, where's Avery and his white charger when you need him?
0 -
I'd rather a slow but sustainable recovery than a rapid one. The economy is beginning to rebalance, growth looks robust, unemployment never got out of hand and is falling as recovery builds. Economic inactivity is declining. Are things perfect? No. I don't expect them to be but Osborne does deserve credit.Alanbrooke said:
B'locksToryJim said:
The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.John_M said:This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
Osborne has done little on economic reform.
Why do Blues give him credit when this is the slowest recovery ever.
The economy has recovered on its own steam, GO has bugger all to do with it but is trying to claim the credit. It's like Brown's golden touch in 1998 when Ken Clarke did all the work.
0 -
Yes. Those were also the defences used in the expenses scandal. Doesn't make it right.Smarmeron said:No one seemed particularly unhappy about it during the ashes test, except for those Aussie ruffians. "Rules of the game" and "within his rights" were the common quotes
Broad screwed up and he knows it.
That doesn't excuse blatant gamesmanship by Sri Lanka, and I hope England now beat them with every underhand tactic they can find 'in the rules'
0 -
That'll teach me for stealing a comment from cricinfo. *sheepish*Pulpstar said:
Does it:Anorak said:
The rarity of the dismissal, and the commonality of backing up, show that the dismissal was well outside the spirit of the game, even if technically within the rules.Richard_Tyndall said:
The law states that you can only be run out backing up if you 'attempt to steal a run'. In this case, Buttler wasn't, IMO.
Law 42.15 of Cricket states that “The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the over.” Appendix D of the Laws of Cricket defines a delivery stride as “the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride”
No mention of stealing in there.0 -
Cameron doesn't conflate debt and deficit. He misspoke on one occasion.John_M said:I've voted Conservative in every election since 1979. Shan't do so again.
I don't think my views have changed particularly radically - I've always been socially liberal / financially conservative.
This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
In one way, a Milliband administration would be preferable; it'd likely spook the markets and introduce some external discipline into the national finances (I should hasten to add that I'm not wedded to that argument!).
In terms of immigration and EU reform; I think that many commentators are willful and deliberately conflate anti-immigrant and anti mass-immigration, in the same way that Cameron appears to conflate 'debt' and 'deficit'.
I don't think my views on UKIP have changed much between 2009 and now; I'm moderately pleased that they seem to be provoking some of the long overdue debates we need to have about both immigration and integration.
0 -
But this defence is vitiated by Osborne's budget statement in June 2010. He said his targets were structural, not cyclical, and thus independent of the prevailing economic conditions.perdix said:I'm prepared to cut Ozzie some slack on the speed of deficit reduction. Part responsible was the v miserable EU growth which was not easily forecast (unless you are a deep sceptic in which case it would have been obvious:))
0 -
Well, let's hope no Sri Lankans pick the ball up to pass it back to the fielding side or take 0.2 seconds longer than permitted to reach the batting crease.corporeal said:
He warned him first. A yard extra out of the crease is a yard less you have to run for a quick single.dyedwoolie said:It's not cricket. You don't do that unless the non striker is charging down the wicket.
England should now seek to run out half the Sri Lankan team in similar circumstances and ensure the umpires have the stopwatch out after each wicket for timed out decisions. They might like to consider appealing for handled ball if the batsman picks up one he drops by his feet as well.
If we are not playing cricket, let's stuff them with things that are 'in the rules'.
I played a game once where the opposing team appealed for timed out against us, it nearly ended up in a riot.
0 -
Exactly. Labour proposed the path of deficit reduction we have experienced over the last few years during the 2010 election campaign, and Osborne et al derided them as deficit deniers who would cause a Greek-style loss of confidence in the ability of the UK to pay its debts.Life_ina_market_town said:
Quite extraordinary spin. In the Emergency Budget of 2010, HM Chancellor of the Exchequer said that his policies would eliminate the structural deficit by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, he set a fiscal mandate that net government debt would be falling as a proportion of gross national product by 2013-2014. It seems that the Chancellor was coming up with 'risible' ideas.ToryJim said:The deficit is down considerably, and has been done at the limit of the politically tolerable. Any attempts to close the gap more rapidly would certainly have lead to greater pain and public resentment and may not have improved the growth situation we are now enjoying. I think the idea that any govt could have repaired the damage in just 4 years is risible.
Osborne has either been very lucky in the mild reaction of the markets to the continuing size of the deficit, or he has been successful in pulling off one of the most amazing confidence tricks in the history of economics.
Whichever is the case it's a very long way from what was promised by Cameron and Osborne in the 2010 election campaign.0 -
And yet again PB is shown to be superior in factual information on virtually any subject - no need to go anywhere else.Anorak said:
That'll teach me for stealing a comment from cricinfo. *sheepish*Pulpstar said:
Does it:Anorak said:
The rarity of the dismissal, and the commonality of backing up, show that the dismissal was well outside the spirit of the game, even if technically within the rules.Richard_Tyndall said:
The law states that you can only be run out backing up if you 'attempt to steal a run'. In this case, Buttler wasn't, IMO.
Law 42.15 of Cricket states that “The bowler is permitted, before entering his delivery stride, to attempt to run out the non-striker. The ball shall not count in the over.” Appendix D of the Laws of Cricket defines a delivery stride as “the stride during which the delivery swing is made, whether the ball is released or not. It starts when the bowler’s back foot lands for that stride and ends when the front foot lands in the same stride”
No mention of stealing in there.
0 -
Buttler was "warned" twice before the incident. Buttler was a dozy sod and was correctly given out.dyedwoolie said:
Yes. Those were also the defences used in the expenses scandal. Doesn't make it right.Smarmeron said:No one seemed particularly unhappy about it during the ashes test, except for those Aussie ruffians. "Rules of the game" and "within his rights" were the common quotes
Broad screwed up and he knows it.
That doesn't excuse blatant gamesmanship by Sri Lanka, and I hope England now beat them with every underhand tactic they can find 'in the rules'
0 -
dyedwoolie said:
Well, let's hope no Sri Lankans pick the ball up to pass it back to the fielding side or take 0.2 seconds longer than permitted to reach the batting crease.corporeal said:
He warned him first. A yard extra out of the crease is a yard less you have to run for a quick single.dyedwoolie said:It's not cricket. You don't do that unless the non striker is charging down the wicket.
England should now seek to run out half the Sri Lankan team in similar circumstances and ensure the umpires have the stopwatch out after each wicket for timed out decisions. They might like to consider appealing for handled ball if the batsman picks up one he drops by his feet as well.
If we are not playing cricket, let's stuff them with things that are 'in the rules'.
I played a game once where the opposing team appealed for timed out against us, it nearly ended up in a riot.
Except they were warned.dyedwoolie said:
Well, let's hope no Sri Lankans pick the ball up to pass it back to the fielding side or take 0.2 seconds longer than permitted to reach the batting crease.corporeal said:
He warned him first. A yard extra out of the crease is a yard less you have to run for a quick single.dyedwoolie said:It's not cricket. You don't do that unless the non striker is charging down the wicket.
England should now seek to run out half the Sri Lankan team in similar circumstances and ensure the umpires have the stopwatch out after each wicket for timed out decisions. They might like to consider appealing for handled ball if the batsman picks up one he drops by his feet as well.
If we are not playing cricket, let's stuff them with things that are 'in the rules'.
I played a game once where the opposing team appealed for timed out against us, it nearly ended up in a riot.
England were gaining a material advantage from leaving the crease early, Sri Lanka warned them and only when they ignored the warning took the wicket.
I imagine if England warned Sri Lanka not to pick the ball up to pass it back to them the Sri Lankans will quite happily let the fielding team run in to collect it each time.
0 -
Research finds that 20,000 university students complained about their degree grade and quality of courses last year http://t.co/xhAfDhPfKv
upside of tuition fees.0 -
@OblitusSumMe
Indeed. The Darling Plan, enacted in the so-called Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010 (which was repealed under the coalition) actually prescribed a faster pace of deficit reduction than has been achieved under this government. As you observe, it was derided by the Tories as a fiscally profligate proposal. The capacity of supporters of the coalition to deceive themselves about the nature of its economic record never ceases to amuse me.0 -
You're right about the continuing level of the deficit - it's still frighteningly high, although set to reduce markedly over the next several years .... IF the Tories win next May's GE. God help us otherwise.John_M said:I've voted Conservative in every election since 1979. Shan't do so again.
I don't think my views have changed particularly radically - I've always been socially liberal / financially conservative.
This administration has utterly failed to deal with the deficit. With a PSNB of around £107 billion last FY, and debt servicing costs north of a £1 billion a week, I think we're in for a world of hurt.
In one way, a Milliband administration would be preferable; it'd likely spook the markets and introduce some external discipline into the national finances (I should hasten to add that I'm not wedded to that argument!).
In terms of immigration and EU reform; I think that many commentators are willful and deliberately conflate anti-immigrant and anti mass-immigration, in the same way that Cameron appears to conflate 'debt' and 'deficit'.
I don't think my views on UKIP have changed much between 2009 and now; I'm moderately pleased that they seem to be provoking some of the long overdue debates we need to have about both immigration and integration.
In their defence I suppose you'd have to say they went pretty much as far and as fast as was socially possible cohesively and always taking into account the absolute necessity of preserving the LibDems' support in terms of preserving the coalition.0 -
I have, in the past, spoken to both Lord Tebbit and Lady Thatcher (RIP) on the subject of immigration. Both held (and Lord Tebbit still holds) similar views to my own. Both came to later regret the SEA, and realise the folly of closer EEC/EC integration in the late 1980s and its implications. They both (famously, and publicly) fought against ever-closer-union in the 1990s and beyond.TheScreamingEagles said:
We've always been pro-immigration party.Casino_Royale said:
It's comments like these that confirm to me that I was right in my decision to resign from the Conservative Party. I have not joined UKIP, but I don't think it likely I will ever go back. The remaining Conservative Party is likely to mould into a soft-centre middle-class pro-EU, pro-immigration liberal party, with a membership to match.TheScreamingEagles said:
In cumulative sense, yes, all the immigration to this country, all the total benefits outweigh any disadvantages.Socrates said:
Do you think all immigration is good?TheScreamingEagles said:
No directly.Speedy said:
What's the reason? UKIP?TheScreamingEagles said:A few years ago, I was in favour of leaving the EU, but now I'm definitely an inner.
I believe SeanT has under gone a similar change.
I've decided that way some people go on and on about immigration, I was probably the best placed to make the positive case for immigration to this country.
Plus, I've always been a fan of the principle of the ECHR.
The legacy of Cameron's leadership will be a permanent split in the right, made all the more final by the contemptuous sneering of the views of those who've split as 'nasty'. There is nothing wrong in believing in limits on immigration. The moderniser strategy for the Conservatives was totally mistargeted, and even more ineptly executed. It was all totally unnecessary but previously life-long loyal Conservatives like me aren't coming back. We've been ignored, patronised and insulted too much.
Lady Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, the great Euro-sceptics, did more to bring in immigration to this country than any other politicians with the Single European Act.
Besides which there was no indication that mass immigration would result from the EEC/EC in 1985, that came later. Margaret Thatcher famously made a speech on immigration that led to a collapse in support for the National Front at the 1979 general election. She then tightened up on immigration controls during her government, and it went away as an issue for the best part of 20 years.
0 -
Mr. Town, didn't the Darling 'plan' (I use the term loosely) assume the most benign and lovely of worlds? And didn't we actually have a eurozone sovereign debt crisis?0
