politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Results: June 5th 2014
Clydesdale South on South Lanarkshire (SNP defence)
Result: Labour 1,492 votes (41% -3%), Scottish National Party 1,170 (32% -10%), Conservative 659 (18% +8%), United Kingdom Independence Party 233 (6% +2%), Green 104 (3%)
Labour GAIN from SNP on the fifth count with a majority of 322 (9%) on a swing of 3.5% from SNP to Lab
Turnout: 30.97%
Comments
-
Imagine an alien seeing those Newark figures then reading the comments on here saying how it was the United Kingdom Independence Party that were the losers
FPT @CarlottaVance
Regarding politics and fairness
Yes ok, but we are discussing politics not spinning for parties. So what is the point of non UKIPpers on here saying a respectable result is bad? You dont have to play pretend politics as if votes are at stake and you have a meme to push, we can be honest surely?0 -
Advocating a lack of context is an interesting method of analysis (surely an alien would be equally confused people claiming UKIP as the winners if you go down that route).isam said:Imagine an alien seeing those Newark figures then reading the comments on here saying how it was the United Kingdom Independence Party that were the losers
FPT @CarlottaVance
Regarding politics and fairness
Yes ok, but we are discussing politics not spinning for parties. So what is the point of non UKIPpers on here saying a respectable result is bad? You dont have to play pretend politics as if votes are at stake and you have a meme to continue, we can be honest surely?
I wouldn't say bad, but it was a result that fell short of the hyped up expectations (even UKIP's own hype).0 -
Has Ed Miliband resigned yet?
Did the earth move when College punctured his inflatable poll?
Can anyone remember who the Lib Dems were?
Is Mr. Brooke sober?0 -
FPT:
I'd fundamentally disagree.Luckyguy1983 said:
@corporealcorporeal said:
I'm trying to put UKIP in some kind of historical context.
Are they 'doing well'? Sure, but that's a bland assessment.
How well are they doing? Compared to historical parties, more evidence of national support but failing to make that breakthrough that others did in seats they started just as far back in. Which means it has to call into question their ability to win seats at a GE.
With the hype (and UKIP have been hyping themselves plenty) comes expectations.
Other parties (and I can only think of SDP/Alliance etc.) have come on very strong, but faded away/slowed right down very quickly. That was a middle party -a amalgam of Labour and Tory that caused a lot of excitement because people thought they didn't have to decide any more, but ultimately fell flat.
In marketing terms, that is called the mushy middle and is to be avoided. UKIP are different -they are a divergence on the Tory right, so their genesis has left the Tories in the mushy middle (some Tories are foolishly delighted at this, relishing their new moderate status), so they will probably go the way of the old Liberal party, or the SDLP, or the UUP. Convergence products = hype and eventual failure. Divergence products = slow adoption but eventual success.
In the 70s and 80s you had a party system that was significantly more polarised than the electorate, there was always a middle ground of voters who were under-served by parties fairly far away from them on the political spectrum.
The emergence/success of the SDP-Liberal alliance was a result of this ignored marketplace, of course there was a reaction. Since they became a threat on the inside flank of each party the two parties reacted by coming much more to the centre and fighting over the centreground.
In this way the Alliance has defined the last 30 years of British politics (and why you can find ex-Alliance members in both major political parties, from Millbank to No. 10).
(It also shows how UKIP may achieve things without much electoral success, but by moving the Tory party).
What this move to the centre has done is open up space on the outer flank of the Conservative party (to massively over-simplicate how the political spectrum works). that UKIP are now filling.
That said I'm skeptical how much demand there is to attract outside the Tories right flank (of course Tories are also trying to appeal to socially conservative Labour voters and like I siad, complicated).
It's not like there's no space for anything between Aldi and Waitrose.0 -
I am not very pro EU, far from it, but I now see UKIP as a very dangerous party. I might not trust Dave completely on the issue, but I think he really is at last getting the message. Whether he will drop it like a hot potato post the GE remains to be seen, but I wouldn't give my vote to UKIP if my life depended on it.
Be careful what you vote for, you might end up getting it.0 -
Dangerous? Nonsense.SquareRoot said:I am not very pro EU, far from it, but I now see UKIP as a very dangerous party. I might not trust Dave completely on the issue, but I think he really is at last getting the message. Whether he will drop it like a hot potato post the GE remains to be seen, but I wouldn't give my vote to UKIP if my life depended on it.
Be careful what you vote for, you might end up getting it.
Are UKIP advocating ending democary in the UK? No. They're advocating increasing the democratic accountability of the state, by returning powers from the EU to the UK.0 -
0
-
I voted for Tony Blair and got an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mass immigration of 13,000 from the poorest countries in Europe that turned out to be close on a million, followed by a recession that skinted the whole countrySquareRoot said:I am not very pro EU, far from it, but I now see UKIP as a very dangerous party. I might not trust Dave completely on the issue, but I think he really is at last getting the message. Whether he will drop it like a hot potato post the GE remains to be seen, but I wouldn't give my vote to UKIP if my life depended on it.
Be careful what you vote for, you might end up getting it.
Cheers
So how could UKIP be worse? Some no mark councillor says "poof" on twitter or tells a racist joke on facebook? I'll suffer that0 -
FPT
Yeah, UKIP's doing nothing to win the referendum, like:Richard_Nabavi said:
As I've said before, if the aim really is to get us out in the foreseeable future, then you first need a referendum, and secondly you need to win it. The first bit is extremely easy: vote Tory in sufficient numbers, and you've got your referendum by the end of 2017, no wriggling possible.david_kendrick1 said:But I don't think that voting for Cameron, because he'll probably organise a referendum if he forms the next govt, is the best way of getting to 'out'.
If you want out, vote UKIP. If you'd like a referendum simply to undermine Farage and UKIP, I can understand voting tory.
The second bit is much harder, certainly (personally I think impossible, but who am I to say?). To maximise the chances of success, you should be spending the next three years making as good a case and as powerful a campaign as possible, in collaboration with people like Dan Hannan. But that's not happening. You are not only trying to throw away success in getting the referendum in the first place, you're also doing nothing to maximise your chances of success if the referendum does occur.
Competing in no hope Labour and Conservative constituencies
Putting up candidates for council elections and by-elections despite the poor return
Actually getting MEPs and councillors elected
Getting more and more members
Yep, they're done jacksh1t compared to Labour's 36% strategy and the Tories' 40/40 strategy.
Just recently, Labour didn't bother in Newark and the Tories haven't bothered in a whole slew of Labour held by-elections.
UKIP reaped the rewards in recent Euros, even getting an MEP in Scotland.0 -
I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.0 -
Yep. I suppose it has come as a shock to these Tory liars that the SNP want independence for Scotland, as opposed to just holding a referendum on the issue to which they were indifferent.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
But, if they really thought that, they would have wanted held a referendum on Lisbon (as Cameron promised) despite the treaty being ratified. Cameron, of course, didn't hold one but the Tory liars still expect everyone to take his word.0 -
George Eaton comes out against the choice of Helmer as candidate and for the theory that 2010 Labour and Lib Dem voted tactically for the Tories:
Had the party [UKIP} run an alternative candidate to Roger Helmer, whose past comments include describing rape victims as sharing "the blame" and homosexuals as "abnormal and undesirable", it would almost certainly have performed better. One Labour source told me that some voters cast a tactical vote for the Tories to stop Ukip, with one comparing it to voting for Jacques Chirac over Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 French presidential election. "Helmer is Hitler," one said.
Full NS blog article: http://bit.ly/1nULXdW0 -
I absolutely agree Helmer was a bad choice. I would love to know who else was on the shortlist that was put before the local party.AveryLP said:George Eaton comes out against the choice of Helmer as candidate and for the theory that 2010 Labour and Lib Dem voted tactically for the Tories:
Had the party [UKIP} run an alternative candidate to Roger Helmer, whose past comments include describing rape victims as sharing "the blame" and homosexuals as "abnormal and undesirable", it would almost certainly have performed better. One Labour source told me that some voters cast a tactical vote for the Tories to stop Ukip, with one comparing it to voting for Jacques Chirac over Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 French presidential election. "Helmer is Hitler," one said.
Full NS blog article: http://bit.ly/1nULXdW
That said no matter who was chosen as UKIP candidate the Tories would still have won. All that might have happened is the race might have been a little closer by a thousand or two.0 -
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.0 -
The question isn't whether they'd have performed better, but would another candidate have performed sufficiently better. I'm not wholly convinced. Counterfactuals are like comfort blankets, often deployed to distract from uncomfortable truths.AveryLP said:George Eaton comes out against the choice of Helmer as candidate and for the theory that 2010 Labour and Lib Dem voted tactically for the Tories:
Had the party [UKIP} run an alternative candidate to Roger Helmer, whose past comments include describing rape victims as sharing "the blame" and homosexuals as "abnormal and undesirable", it would almost certainly have performed better. One Labour source told me that some voters cast a tactical vote for the Tories to stop Ukip, with one comparing it to voting for Jacques Chirac over Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 French presidential election. "Helmer is Hitler," one said.
Full NS blog article: http://bit.ly/1nULXdW0 -
Two conclusions from thinking about Newark:
1) Middle class tactical voting against UKIP from the sort of wishy-washy person who previously voted LibDem in the belief that the Libdems were the 'nice' party is likely. Likewise working class tactical voting for UKIP will also be possible where they challenge the Conservatives.
2) Newark has shown that the 'Reactionary Tory' image of Helmer is a dead end and will not get them anything more than solid second places in strong Conservative areas - you can't outTory the Tories.
Leading to a third conclusion:
3) UKIP need a more varied public image. More working class, more women, younger.
0 -
Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.0
-
PoliticalBetting is the 8th most popular political blog:
http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/politics0 -
That is a very strange claim. Why would people vote a certain way in a referendum because Dishface and whoever succeeds Miliband were campaigning for that result? Two years into a second term, very possibly during or after a new financial crisis caused by Eurozone or Chinese deflation or a housing bust, it is at least as likely as not that Cameron's support for "in" would be seriously counterproductive for "in". As to his alleged lies, you are always going to have to counter the arguments and claims of your opponent; that's politics for you. And you have three years in which to do it.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Either you want a referendum, or you secretly don't. To quote part of a speech known and loved by all UKIPers: "he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart"0 -
@corporealcorporeal said:
I'd fundamentally disagree.
In the 70s and 80s you had a party system that was significantly more polarised than the electorate, there was always a middle ground of voters who were under-served by parties fairly far away from them on the political spectrum.
The emergence/success of the SDP-Liberal alliance was a result of this ignored marketplace, of course there was a reaction. Since they became a threat on the inside flank of each party the two parties reacted by coming much more to the centre and fighting over the centreground.
In this way the Alliance has defined the last 30 years of British politics (and why you can find ex-Alliance members in both major political parties, from Millbank to No. 10).
(It also shows how UKIP may achieve things without much electoral success, but by moving the Tory party).
What this move to the centre has done is open up space on the outer flank of the Conservative party (to massively over-simplicate how the political spectrum works). that UKIP are now filling.
That said I'm skeptical how much demand there is to attract outside the Tories right flank (of course Tories are also trying to appeal to socially conservative Labour voters and like I siad, complicated).
It's not like there's no space for anything between Aldi and Waitrose.
I said this in the other thread before I realised there was this one:
An interesting analysis, but what is 'centre' is a totally abstract concept, defined by what is at either end of the spectrum. There were 'centrist' Nazis. A successful party redefines the centre ground.
0 -
Beaten by Wings. Oh the humanity.AndyJS said:PoliticalBetting is the 8th most popular political blog:
http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/politics0 -
Good evening, everyone.
Cheers to Mr. Hayfield for his by-election summary.0 -
Because I don't trust UKIP's aims.. I am very uneasy about them.. I think UKIP are a racist party. They should not be trusted.isam said:
I voted for Tony Blair and got an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mass immigration of 13,000 from the poorest countries in Europe that turned out to be close on a million, followed by a recession that skinted the whole countrySquareRoot said:I am not very pro EU, far from it, but I now see UKIP as a very dangerous party. I might not trust Dave completely on the issue, but I think he really is at last getting the message. Whether he will drop it like a hot potato post the GE remains to be seen, but I wouldn't give my vote to UKIP if my life depended on it.
Be careful what you vote for, you might end up getting it.
Cheers
So how could UKIP be worse? Some no mark councillor says "poof" on twitter or tells a racist joke on facebook? I'll suffer that
Before you know where you are, people will be involuntarily be removed to purify the state
Don't trust UKIP, is my view.0 -
@:Richard_Tyndall
'I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win.'
Get real ,UKIP have been whining on for years about an EU referendum,one has now been offered and they now come up with endless pathetic excuses for not having one.
Just a bunch of chickens.0 -
It may soon be crossover with Scot Goes PopRobD said:
Beaten by Wings. Oh the humanity.AndyJS said:PoliticalBetting is the 8th most popular political blog:
http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/politics0 -
wowSquareRoot said:
Because I don't trust UKIP's aims.. I am very uneasy about them.. I think UKIP are a racist party. They should not be trusted.isam said:
I voted for Tony Blair and got an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mass immigration of 13,000 from the poorest countries in Europe that turned out to be close on a million, followed by a recession that skinted the whole countrySquareRoot said:I am not very pro EU, far from it, but I now see UKIP as a very dangerous party. I might not trust Dave completely on the issue, but I think he really is at last getting the message. Whether he will drop it like a hot potato post the GE remains to be seen, but I wouldn't give my vote to UKIP if my life depended on it.
Be careful what you vote for, you might end up getting it.
Cheers
So how could UKIP be worse? Some no mark councillor says "poof" on twitter or tells a racist joke on facebook? I'll suffer that
Before you know where you are, people will be involuntarily be removed to purify the state
Don't trust UKIP, is my view.
and I thought I had a drink problem0 -
You are stark raving madSquareRoot said:
Because I don't trust UKIP's aims.. I am very uneasy about them.. I think UKIP are a racist party. They should not be trusted.isam said:
I voted for Tony Blair and got an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, mass immigration of 13,000 from the poorest countries in Europe that turned out to be close on a million, followed by a recession that skinted the whole countrySquareRoot said:I am not very pro EU, far from it, but I now see UKIP as a very dangerous party. I might not trust Dave completely on the issue, but I think he really is at last getting the message. Whether he will drop it like a hot potato post the GE remains to be seen, but I wouldn't give my vote to UKIP if my life depended on it.
Be careful what you vote for, you might end up getting it.
Cheers
So how could UKIP be worse? Some no mark councillor says "poof" on twitter or tells a racist joke on facebook? I'll suffer that
Before you know where you are, people will be involuntarily be removed to purify the state
Don't trust UKIP, is my view.0 -
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.0 -
Has Wings lost that many readers ?JohnO said:
It may soon be crossover with Scot Goes PopRobD said:
Beaten by Wings. Oh the humanity.AndyJS said:PoliticalBetting is the 8th most popular political blog:
http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/politics
0 -
loony tune postRichard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
Cameron is irrelevant. Try making a case.0 -
Clearly a lack of posts about differential front end grip and the difference between tyre wear and thermal degradation has caused tempers to become frayed. Fret not, pb.com, Morris Dancer is on the case!
Which reminds me, I completely forgot about practice today. Bugger. Oh well. I blame Dragon Age: Origins for this.
Edited extra bit: just checked the P1 and P2 times. If they're representative then Force India are surprisingly slow. Mind you, they are going to have to upgrade their car one of these days.0 -
Nope, Cameron's whole gameplan is based upon coming back from his negotiations with the EU equivalent of 'peace in our times'. This is already clear because he has not left himself anywhere near enough time to actually get an enforceable deal which he can guarantee will not be reneged upon as soon as the referendum has been lost.Ishmael_X said:
That is a very strange claim. Why would people vote a certain way in a referendum because Dishface and whoever succeeds Miliband were campaigning for that result? Two years into a second term, very possibly during or after a new financial crisis caused by Eurozone or Chinese deflation or a housing bust, it is at least as likely as not that Cameron's support for "in" would be seriously counterproductive for "in". As to his alleged lies, you are always going to have to counter the arguments and claims of your opponent; that's politics for you. And you have three years in which to do it.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Either you want a referendum, or you secretly don't. To quote part of a speech known and loved by all UKIPers: "he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart"
Anyone stupid enough to actually believe that Cameron is sincere in his claims about negotiating any real change in the EU clearly does not understand either Cameron or the EU.0 -
You need some anger management counselling along with basic democracy training. But then you are a bitter kipper. Still you make me laugh so you can't be all bad.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
0 -
Nope the underlying principle is that politicians are fundamentally dishonest. That is a very different thing. When it comes to lacking intellectual capacity you are clearly showing that in spades.matt said:Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.
0 -
It's like "alternative" comedians and Thatcher, when Camron goes they lose all their material.JohnO said:
You need some anger management counselling. But then you are a bitter kipper. But you make me laugh so you can't be all bad.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.0 -
"Ukip do not trust the British public; because they are gullible and stupid"
Line 1 in the UKIP manifesto?
I think it better to stick to train liveries, and taxi uniforms.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.0 -
I am not angry at all. I have been proved delightfully right in all my predictions over the last few weeks and am simply enjoying an evening of showing up the ignorance and arrogance of Europhile Cameroons.JohnO said:
You need some anger management counselling along with basic democracy training. But then you are a bitter kipper. Still you make me laugh so you can't be all bad.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
UKIP have had a far more successful couple of months than I would ever have thought possible and I whilst I don't share the rather fanciful predictions of some UKIP supporters I am looking forward to a solid double digit vote share, a couple of seats and having denied Cameron the chance to take the country for a ride once again.
0 -
What on earth is that supposed to mean?matt said:Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.
0 -
I agree Newark wasn't winnable by UKIP. Never having been to Newark, I took account of your early and clear analysis of the constituency but the clincher was seeing a photo of the Palladian Town Hall and Market Square.Richard_Tyndall said:
I absolutely agree Helmer was a bad choice. I would love to know who else was on the shortlist that was put before the local party.AveryLP said:George Eaton comes out against the choice of Helmer as candidate and for the theory that 2010 Labour and Lib Dem voted tactically for the Tories:
Had the party [UKIP} run an alternative candidate to Roger Helmer, whose past comments include describing rape victims as sharing "the blame" and homosexuals as "abnormal and undesirable", it would almost certainly have performed better. One Labour source told me that some voters cast a tactical vote for the Tories to stop Ukip, with one comaring it to voting for Jacques Chirac over Jean-Marie Le Pen in the 2002 French presidential election. "Helmer is Hitler," one said.
Full NS blog article: http://bit.ly/1nULXdW
That said no matter who was chosen as UKIP candidate the Tories would still have won. All that might have happened is the race might have been a little closer by a thousand or two.
I guess Farage and his henchmen agreed. Hence the selection of a candidate who was an incumbent MP and top of the East Midlands party list in this year's Euros. It was a 'nothing to lose' decision.
But what they forgot in this assessment was that Newark would have the eyes of the nation upon it and that the UKIP candidate, even if not a winner, would become a showcase for the party. A bit like Diane James became the 'alternatve and acceptable' face of the party in Eastleigh. Farage missed a trick here.
What is worse he queered the pitch of Helmer by getting photographed in Malta at 3:42 am 'assisting a handicapped woman back to her hotel'. A defence which became even more unbelievable the following day when The Sun published a photo of what he had been up to before becoming the good knight of Malta. See: http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
Now Sam may laugh away such laddish holiday destination behaviour, but imagine how Farage would have reacted to Godfrey Bloom pulling the same stunt on him if he (Farage) had been standing in Newark.
If UKIP are to win a by election they must show the electorate that they both want and deserve to win. They did neither do in Newark. And that is before setting out what benefits the electors of Newark would receive from such election.
0 -
The case has already been made and won. That is why Cameron is having to follow a policy of pretending to do something to reform the EU. If we Eurosceptics hadn't already won the battle over the true nature of the EU then Cameron would have no need to try and persuade us it was being reformed.Alanbrooke said:
loony tune postRichard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Cameron is the problem not the solution and getting rid of him is the only way we will see any realistic chance of us leaving the EU in the next decade.
That has always been my position so for JohnO to somehow calm that I have been disingenuous about this is an outright lie - and just what I would expect from a plastic Conservative.
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
Cameron is irrelevant. Try making a case.
What is important now is to make sure that when he comes crawling back claiming 'peace in our time' we can show that he is continuing his lies in defence of the indefensible. That will be a far more difficult task and I would prefer if it were not necessary as I am not sure it can be done.0 -
Most assuredly you have been (delightfully) shown up this evening. I am much obliged.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am not angry at all. I have been proved delightfully right in all my predictions over the last few weeks and am simply enjoying an evening of showing up the ignorance and arrogance of Europhile Cameroons.JohnO said:
You need some anger management counselling along with basic democracy training. But then you are a bitter kipper. Still you make me laugh so you can't be all bad.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
J
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
UKIP have had a far more successful couple of months than I would ever have thought possible and I whilst I don't share the rather fanciful predictions of some UKIP supporters I am looking forward to a solid double digit vote share, a couple of seats and having denied Cameron the chance to take the country for a ride once again.
0 -
Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?0
-
Not entirely so no.Luckyguy1983 said:
@corporealcorporeal said:
I'd fundamentally disagree.
It's not like there's no space for anything between Aldi and Waitrose.
I said this in the other thread before I realised there was this one:
An interesting analysis, but what is 'centre' is a totally abstract concept, defined by what is at either end of the spectrum. There were 'centrist' Nazis. A successful party redefines the centre ground.
There've been various bits of academic research into things like that, asking people questions to place them on a spectrum(s) or just asking them where they see themselves (which is a different thing but also useful) and also where they perceive the parties to be etc.
During that period of polarisation they found the parties had spread apart on the spectrum and you had this middle ground of voters that didn't feel particularly close to a party, but voted for it because the other party was even further away.
Thatcher moved the centre ground but didn't occupy it, she pulled at it from the right wing and Labour was so far to the left and hoping to retake power from there. The political party gravity was spread to the wings and left an ignored centre.
That fertile ground was what allowed the Alliance to grow so quickly and have the success they have. Their effect was to shift the political gravity so it was concentrated in the political centre-ground rather than on the wings.
Labour and the Conservatives were forced into the opposite gamble they used to make, pushing into the centre to counter the LDs, and reckoning that those on their outer flanks didn't have a better place to go.
And so UKIP found that space.
It's politics as the marketplace, parties trying to find the optimum price point as it were. Whenever a party stretches a bit too far then you get a competitor rising to try for the support of under-served voters.
You can argue about the efficiency of the system (and it is much more complicated than one spectrum) but there is an essential logic to it.
0 -
So expose him as a liar in the run-up to the referendum. Rubbish his arguments. Defeat his gameplan. Do some politics. You are entitled only to a fair fight, meaning a neutrally worded in-out referendum in which you can try to persuade the electorate of your case. That's democracy.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, Cameron's whole gameplan is based upon coming back from his negotiations with the EU equivalent of 'peace in our times'. This is already clear because he has not left himself anywhere near enough time to actually get an enforceable deal which he can guarantee will not be reneged upon as soon as the referendum has been lost.Ishmael_X said:
That is a very strange claim. Why would people vote a certain way in a referendum because Dishface and whoever succeeds Miliband were campaigning for that result? Two years into a second term, very possibly during or after a new financial crisis caused by Eurozone or Chinese deflation or a housing bust, it is at least as likely as not that Cameron's support for "in" would be seriously counterproductive for "in". As to his alleged lies, you are always going to have to counter the arguments and claims of your opponent; that's politics for you. And you have three years in which to do it.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Either you want a referendum, or you secretly don't. To quote part of a speech known and loved by all UKIPers: "he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart"
Anyone stupid enough to actually believe that Cameron is sincere in his claims about negotiating any real change in the EU clearly does not understand either Cameron or the EU.0 -
Nope, we just recognise a bunch of liars when we see them.john_zims said:@:Richard_Tyndall
'I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win.'
Get real ,UKIP have been whining on for years about an EU referendum,one has now been offered and they now come up with endless pathetic excuses for not having one.
Just a bunch of chickens.0 -
RobD said:
Beaten by Wings. Oh the humanity.AndyJS said:PoliticalBetting is the 8th most popular political blog:
http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/politics
I need to get around to setting up a facebook thing for the site at some point. Get all the promotion whatsits going.0 -
It can be blamed for many such forgetful events, no question. With my new PC arriving Monday (old one's crocked completely sadly, so I didn't think it was worth merely upgrading bits of it), so I may actually forget about politics entirely for a while myself, to get my money's worth from it, a terrible thought indeed.Morris_Dancer said:Clearly a lack of posts about differential front end grip and the difference between tyre wear and thermal degradation has caused tempers to become frayed. Fret not, pb.com, Morris Dancer is on the case!
Which reminds me, I completely forgot about practice today. Bugger. Oh well. I blame Dragon Age: Origins for this.
.
Labourlist toppiing Guido? He won't like that. Still, he has the MP viewing numbers down I guess.AndyJS said:PoliticalBetting is the 8th most popular political blog:
http://labs.ebuzzing.co.uk/top-blogs/politics
I've never even heard of Pride's Purge, which given my affinity for all things even tangential to the Civil War period I am surprised about. But I think I've become a bit of a poll junkie, and pb scratches that itch pretty well.0 -
Right, so if he negotiates something it won't sway UKIP voters as it by definition would not be enough, and it is very unlikely to be substantive in any case, which UKIP and others can point out very effectively, so the general anti-EU feeling should still be pretty strong, and so a win seems pretty achievable regardless of who is PM or which side they are cheerleading for.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, Cameron's whole gameplan is based upon coming back from his negotiations with the EU equivalent of 'peace in our times'. This is already clear because he has not left himself anywhere near enough time to actually get an enforceable deal which he can guarantee will not be reneged upon as soon as the referendum has been lost.Ishmael_X said:
That is a very strange claim. Why would people vote a certain way in a referendum because Dishface and whoever succeeds Miliband were campaigning for that result? Two years into a second term, very possibly during or after a new financial crisis caused by Eurozone or Chinese deflation or a housing bust, it is at least as likely as not that Cameron's support for "in" would be seriously counterproductive for "in". As to his alleged lies, you are always going to have to counter the arguments and claims of your opponent; that's politics for you. And you have three years in which to do it.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
Just to reply to the rabid Cameroon stooge John from the previous thread.
I have always been absolutely clear where I stand on a referendum. I want one that we can win. Not one that has already been stitched up by Cameron with his lies and false promises so there is no chance of an Out vote. The referendum is simply a means to an end. The end is getting out of the EU. .
Now I now the thicker Tory Europhiles like JohnO have difficulty with this but if the aim is to leave the EU then a referendum where both the main parties are supporting staying in and where the PM is making false claims about some minor changes to the EU which will be dropped as soon as the referendum is out of the way is not the way to achieve this.
Either you want a referendum, or you secretly don't. To quote part of a speech known and loved by all UKIPers: "he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart"
Anyone stupid enough to actually believe that Cameron is sincere in his claims about negotiating any real change in the EU clearly does not understand either Cameron or the EU.
0 -
Not at all John, I have simply done one of my periodic and very enjoyable sessions of pointing out that certain posters on here - of which you are a perfect example - are utterly unworthy of anything but scorn. I do believe that whilst most people, whatever their political persuasion are genuine and worthy of respect there are some who are irredeemably dishonest and should be harried and challenged whenever possible. It is pleasant once in a while to make that clear.JohnO said:
Most assuredly you have been (delightfully) shown up this evening. I am much obliged.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am not angry at all. I have been proved delightfully right in all my predictions over the last few weeks and am simply enjoying an evening of showing up the ignorance and arrogance of Europhile Cameroons.JohnO said:
You need some anger management counselling along with basic democracy training. But then you are a bitter kipper. Still you make me laugh so you can't be all bad.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
J
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
UKIP have had a far more successful couple of months than I would ever have thought possible and I whilst I don't share the rather fanciful predictions of some UKIP supporters I am looking forward to a solid double digit vote share, a couple of seats and having denied Cameron the chance to take the country for a ride once again.
0 -
Harry Cole in the Big Brother House!!!
He's not as sexy as the real one though.0 -
Mr. kle4, replaying Origins and DA2. Interesting to compare the two. Origins is definitely superior, although DA2 has a much better user interface.
Heard rumours Inquisition might be delayed. About 5 major games were due to come out within a week or so, but Arkham Thingummyjig (next Batman game) has already announced a delay. If Inquisition does come out later I hope we get an early look at the character creator as per Origins.0 -
Believe me, Richard, I will bear your scorn as a badge of pride and honour.Richard_Tyndall said:
Not at all John, I have simply done one of my periodic and very enjoyable sessions of pointing out that certain posters on here - of which you are a perfect example - are utterly unworthy of anything but scorn. I do believe that whilst most people, whatever their political persuasion are genuine and worthy of respect there are some who are irredeemably dishonest and should be harried and challenged whenever possible. It is pleasant once in a while to make that clear.JohnO said:
Most assuredly you have been (delightfully) shown up this evening. I am much obliged.Richard_Tyndall said:
I am not angry at all. I have been proved delightfully right in all my predictions over the last few weeks and am simply enjoying an evening of showing up the ignorance and arrogance of Europhile Cameroons.JohnO said:
You need some anger management counselling along with basic democracy training. But then you are a bitter kipper. Still you make me laugh so you can't be all bad.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, I just face facts that Cameron and his slimy ilk, of which you are a classically malignant example, are never going to accept the UK leaving the EU and will do everything including lying about whatever scraps they get from their 'negotiations' to make sure that a referendum result is a foregone conclusion.JohnO said:
Goodness, I'm getting soaked in the cyber-spittle. Boorish, oafish Tyndall rants against his fellow citizens having their say in a referendum 'cos they are so stupid not to be able to make their own minds when casting their votes.Richard_Tyndall said:I have been travelling much of today so not had a chance to post.
J
And he calls himself a libertarian.
Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
UKIP have had a far more successful couple of months than I would ever have thought possible and I whilst I don't share the rather fanciful predictions of some UKIP supporters I am looking forward to a solid double digit vote share, a couple of seats and having denied Cameron the chance to take the country for a ride once again.0 -
UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.0 -
In my view I think that if Cameron had the choice he would choose for Scotland to stay in the Union with England and for the UK to leave the EU, rather than to lose Scotland but stay in the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
Although I wouldn't say that the Scottish independence campaign is being conducted with the highest standards of honesty, I don't think that Cameron is capable of making the result a foregone conclusion.
That said, the Referendum Party contested the general election of 1997, and UKIP are more than a party asking for a referendum, so they do not owe automatic support to any other party just because that party promises a referendum on UK membership of the EU.0 -
Wings over Scotland - Must be Paul and Linda's unreleased tracks to go with Mull of Kintyre.0
-
Li Dems Facebook photo banner
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10250177_10152341081638270_8386451188195878339_n.jp
(Add a g to the end to spell jpg)0 -
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
EDIT: To be fair, if they do vote for him, they are idiots so he would be right I suppose0 -
Not sure I can disagree with any of that. But then as you know I have always blown hot and cold over Farage as leader of UKIP (well mostly cold having never voted for him).AveryLP said:
I agree Newark wasn't winnable by UKIP. Never having been to Newark, I took account of your early and clear analysis of the constituency but the clincher was seeing a photo of the Palladian Town Hall and Market Square.
I guess Farage and his henchmen agreed. Hence the selection of a candidate who was an incumbent MP and top of the East Midlands party list in this year's Euros. It was a 'nothing to lose' decision.
But what they forgot in this assessment was that Newark would have the eyes of the nation upon it and that the UKIP candidate, even if not a winner, would become a showcase for the party. A bit like Diane James became the 'alternatve and acceptable' face of the party in Eastleigh. Farage missed a trick here.
What is worse he queered the pitch of Helmer by getting photographed in Malta at 3:42 am 'assisting a handicapped woman back to her hotel'. A defence which became even more unbelievable the following day when The Sun published a photo of what he had been up to before becoming the good knight of Malta. See: http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
Now Sam may laugh away such laddish holiday destination behaviour, but imagine how Farage would have reacted to Godfrey Bloom pulling the same stunt on him if he (Farage) had been standing in Newark.
If UKIP are to win a by election they must show the electorate that they both want and deserve to win. They did neither do in Newark. And that is before setting out what benefits the electors of Newark would receive from such election.
Interestingly I don't think the Newark result really impacts anything for any of the parties. A UKIP win would have been notable only for the fact it would have resulted in a UKIP MP and as such the result would have had a far bigger impact than it perhaps would have deserved.
Amazingly even for the Lib Dems I don't think it really changes anything as it just continues the current thinking that they are in deep trouble. It makes it no more or less likely that they will disappear as the third party (personally I don't think they will). Likewise for Labour and the Tories no matter how much their respective supporters might try to spin it I am not sure it really changes anyone's perceptions.
0 -
No one said they did. It is however legitimate to make the point, for the benefit not of UKIP but of BOO voters deciding how to vote in 2015, that UKIP's claims that the 2017 referendum will be in some way "the wrong sort of referendum" are entirely without merit.OblitusSumMe said:
In my view I think that if Cameron had the choice he would choose for Scotland to stay in the Union with England and for the UK to leave the EU, rather than to lose Scotland but stay in the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
Although I wouldn't say that the Scottish independence campaign is being conducted with the highest standards of honesty, I don't think that Cameron is capable of making the result a foregone conclusion.
That said, the Referendum Party contested the general election of 1997, and UKIP are more than a party asking for a referendum, so they do not owe automatic support to any other party just because that party promises a referendum on UK membership of the EU.
It is also legitimate to object to the use of expressions like "nasty little slimeballs like you" in this debate.0 -
The more I see of UKIP supporters the more I'm reminded of Churchill's description of a fanatic.0
-
Yes, it'll be interesting to go back to that system - I do like how they don't appear to be averse to shaking things up pretty significantly even within a single series. After the initial shock wore off at how different in style in some ways DA2 was from Origins, with the Mass Effect style protagonist and so on, I've come to think of it as in fact really really good, es[pecially storywise and how deep the character connections are. I'd agree Origins is the superior game overall, particularly with less copy pasted stuff and the wider focus, but in terms of character I think they're pretty even and DA2's combat was much more fun. It's been about half a year since I replayed them last and want to again to be honest, but I'm trying to clear my Steam backlog - no easy task!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. kle4, replaying Origins and DA2. Interesting to compare the two. Origins is definitely superior, although DA2 has a much better user interface.
Heard rumours Inquisition might be delayed. About 5 major games were due to come out within a week or so, but Arkham Thingummyjig (next Batman game) has already announced a delay. If Inquisition does come out later I hope we get an early look at the character creator as per Origins.
I'd heard Inquisition already had planned a longer development time planned than any previous Bioware game, so it'll be pretty annoying if it is delayed, but that's game development (and A Song of Ice and Fire) for you I guess, and better long wait good game than some yearly iteration - at least my copy of Watchdogs has arrived at last, just in time for the new PC, I hope it's worth the delay (as South Park was).
Arkham Knight I'm not as bothered about, though I am curious to see how the next Assassin's Creed game goes, now that i assume it will be harder to rely on the sailing like in Black Flag.
0 -
Remind me.ToryJim said:
The more I see of UKIP supporters the more I'm reminded of Churchill's description of a fanatic.
0 -
@Richard_Tyndall
'Nope, we just recognise a bunch of liars when we see them.'
UKIP bang on for years about the need for an EU referendum and get one,they then do a massive u-turn and come up with endless excuses not to have one, who are the liars?
Even if Daniel Hannan was the Tory PM UKIP would find some excuses.
You don't seem to understand that Farage & co are on the gravy train and have no intention of getting off anytime soon,hook,line & sinker come to mind.
0 -
0
-
Hmm,
I'd forgotten I'd written my view on UKIP's route to power before.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/24/the-political-role-of-the-purples-as-a-stalking-horse/
How long is it considered appropriate before I re-hash all that, update it a bit, and call it a new article?0 -
Like on Wings over Dorset?ToryJim said:
@foxinsoxuk
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.0 -
Oh, that's just Richard's slightly eccentric way of showing affection, possibly symptomatic of an underlying superiority complex.Ishmael_X said:
No one said they did. It is however legitimate to make the point, for the benefit not of UKIP but of BOO voters deciding how to vote in 2015, that UKIP's claims that the 2017 referendum will be in some way "the wrong sort of referendum" are entirely without merit.OblitusSumMe said:
In my view I think that if Cameron had the choice he would choose for Scotland to stay in the Union with England and for the UK to leave the EU, rather than to lose Scotland but stay in the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:Getting rid of Cameron is a pre-requisite to leaving the EU as he will stoop to anything to ensure it does not happen and nasty little slimeballs like you will help him do it.
Although I wouldn't say that the Scottish independence campaign is being conducted with the highest standards of honesty, I don't think that Cameron is capable of making the result a foregone conclusion.
That said, the Referendum Party contested the general election of 1997, and UKIP are more than a party asking for a referendum, so they do not owe automatic support to any other party just because that party promises a referendum on UK membership of the EU.
It is also legitimate to object to the use of expressions like "nasty little slimeballs like you" in this debate.
0 -
Well part of that is no doubt the thought, and it is more a hope now, that literally the only thing UKIPers care about is the EU, and so they will pay any price for the opportunity to exist from it. Of course, now they are even more focused on an anti-mainstream party attitude even though the EU remains the overwhelmingly dominant concern, and additionally its supporters are far less willing to pay the price of, say, a Cameron ministry, for the reward offered, than they might previously have been,isam said:
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
That said, the point made by some about the 'wrong sort of referendum' being an odd line to take, is fair I think. If the position is strong, who cares how you get the referendum, believe enough and you can win. I would not personally advocate voting Tory merely to gain that referendum attempt, but should he get in power and be able to pursue it, it won't matter which side he is on, it's still the right referendum at the right time (the right time being whenever it happens, preferably sooner rather than later).0 -
Richard_Tyndall said:
Not sure I can disagree with any of that. But then as you know I have always blown hot and cold over Farage as leader of UKIP (well mostly cold having never voted for him).AveryLP said:
I agree Newark wasn't winnable by UKIP. Never having been to Newark, I took account of your early and clear analysis of the constituency but the clincher was seeing a photo of the Palladian Town Hall and Market Square.
I guess Farage and his henchmen agreed. Hence the selection of a candidate who was an incumbent MP and top of the East Midlands party list in this year's Euros. It was a 'nothing to lose' decision.
But what they forgot in this assessment was that Newark would have the eyes of the nation upon it and that the UKIP candidate, even if not a winner, would become a showcase for the party. A bit like Diane James became the 'alternatve and acceptable' face of the party in Eastleigh. Farage missed a trick here.
What is worse he queered the pitch of Helmer by getting photographed in Malta at 3:42 am 'assisting a handicapped woman back to her hotel'. A defence which became even more unbelievable the following day when The Sun published a photo of what he had been up to before becoming the good knight of Malta. See: http://bit.ly/1nnXXkw
Now Sam may laugh away such laddish holiday destination behaviour, but imagine how Farage would have reacted to Godfrey Bloom pulling the same stunt on him if he (Farage) had been standing in Newark.
If UKIP are to win a by election they must show the electorate that they both want and deserve to win. They did neither do in Newark. And that is before setting out what benefits the electors of Newark would receive from such election.
Interestingly I don't think the Newark result really impacts anything for any of the parties. A UKIP win would have been notable only for the fact it would have resulted in a UKIP MP and as such the result would have had a far bigger impact than it perhaps would have deserved.
Amazingly even for the Lib Dems I don't think it really changes anything as it just continues the current thinking that they are in deep trouble. It makes it no more or less likely that they will disappear as the third party (personally I don't think they will). Likewise for Labour and the Tories no matter how much their respective supporters might try to spin it I am not sure it really changes anyone's perceptions.
Richard, it depends on whose perspective you are looking from. You were early, consistent and unambiguous in stating UKIP would not win based on local knowledge.
Others in UKIP and the media hyped UKIPs chances far more. The result has more impact for them than you, as it has for all who were told Torys could or would lose, but then saw a respectable majority.0 -
Based on the Dan Hodges scale, somewhere between 1 hour and 1 week.corporeal said:Hmm,
I'd forgotten I'd written my view on UKIP's route to power before.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/03/24/the-political-role-of-the-purples-as-a-stalking-horse/
How long is it considered appropriate before I re-hash all that, update it a bit, and call it a new article?
0 -
I agree there's a logic to what you're saying. And comparison to a marketplace is a fair one. But I still think you are thinking far too statically. You are thinking there is basic common sense and right-thinking, and either side there are extremes. That's an illusion. We think of our post-modernist 21st century view as inviolable, but it is likely to seem as outdated in 100 years as the views of 1900 do today.corporeal said:
Not entirely so no.
There've been various bits of academic research into things like that, asking people questions to place them on a spectrum(s) or just asking them where they see themselves (which is a different thing but also useful) and also where they perceive the parties to be etc.
During that period of polarisation they found the parties had spread apart on the spectrum and you had this middle ground of voters that didn't feel particularly close to a party, but voted for it because the other party was even further away.
Thatcher moved the centre ground but didn't occupy it, she pulled at it from the right wing and Labour was so far to the left and hoping to retake power from there. The political party gravity was spread to the wings and left an ignored centre.
That fertile ground was what allowed the Alliance to grow so quickly and have the success they have. Their effect was to shift the political gravity so it was concentrated in the political centre-ground rather than on the wings.
Labour and the Conservatives were forced into the opposite gamble they used to make, pushing into the centre to counter the LDs, and reckoning that those on their outer flanks didn't have a better place to go.
And so UKIP found that space.
It's politics as the marketplace, parties trying to find the optimum price point as it were. Whenever a party stretches a bit too far then you get a competitor rising to try for the support of under-served voters.
You can argue about the efficiency of the system (and it is much more complicated than one spectrum) but there is an essential logic to it.0 -
I find Mr Tyndall tiresome in his rubbishing of things he is prejudiced against, based on nothing but his prejudices, and his zealotry on the part of the misconceptions which drives his prejudices.
People like Mr Tyndall are not blinkered minds, they are closed minds and I am fed up with reading their one-eyed nonsense.
0 -
-
Off topic, but the BBC's coverage of the D Day anniversary is quite superb. And so moving.0
-
There is recent polling, covered on here, showing that the topics about which UKIP voters are least fussed are Cameron, and gay marriage (which I assume is what you mean by "everything they dislike"). But however much you loathe him, it would still be rational to vote for him IF you are serious about wanting to fight and win an in-out referendum.isam said:
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
EDIT: To be fair, if they do vote for him, they are idiots so he would be right I suppose
UKIP = FRIT.
0 -
@Richard_Tyndall
Newark doesn't impact much external to the parties however it probably has impact within. The result boosts the Conservatives morale, that shouldn't be underestimated. It means that more people will put more effort in over the next year. That increases Tory chances, also having in their perception given UKIP a spanking they will be looking for ways of doing it again.
For Labour the result can only increase doubts about their positioning and strategy. This is a downside for them as parties that have significant doubts about themselves often find ways to communicate those doubts more widely to the electorate.
For Lib Dems the only strategy they have left is to retreat to their re doubts circle the wagons and hope there aren't too many scalps.
It doesn't change the geography but it does alter the disposition of the forces ranging over it.0 -
Perhaps there is eveidence to prove me wrong, but I think, psychologically, asking people to vote for Cameron to the extent that he wins a majority, then asking the same people to distrust everything he says about his renogotiations over EU membership to the point where they will vote agianst him in a referendum seems a tough one to sell. Especially to ex Labour voters that find it hard voting for a supposedly right wing party, let alone the old enemy (ie me)kle4 said:
Well part of that is no doubt the thought, and it is more a hope now, that literally the only thing UKIPers care about is the EU, and so they will pay any price for the opportunity to exist from it. Of course, now they are even more focused on an anti-mainstream party attitude even though the EU remains the overwhelmingly dominant concern, and additionally its supporters are far less willing to pay the price of, say, a Cameron ministry, for the reward offered, than they might previously have been,isam said:
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
That said, the point made by some about the 'wrong sort of referendum' being an odd line to take, is fair I think. If the position is strong, who cares how you get the referendum, believe enough and you can win. I would not personally advocate voting Tory merely to gain that referendum attempt, but should he get in power and be able to pursue it, it won't matter which side he is on, it's still the right referendum at the right time (the right time being whenever it happens, preferably sooner rather than later).0 -
Any lasting significance from Newark?
1) The Conservatives have the appetite for a fight.
2) They seem to have effectively test driven an anti-UKIP tactical voting strategy.
3) Labour don't seem willing to get stuck in.
4) UKIP have a poor ground game still.
5) the Lib Dem vote is soft as butter.0 -
Simple and simpleton. Congratulations. Politicians reflect the public. You dislike the public because you think that you're cleverer than them. Your call.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope the underlying principle is that politicians are fundamentally dishonest. That is a very different thing. When it comes to lacking intellectual capacity you are clearly showing that in spades.matt said:Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.
0 -
@Ishmael_X
'UKIP = FRIT.'
Spot on,I used to vote for them in the Euros on the basis that they were serious about an EU referendum,they get one & chicken out.0 -
If 2) gets UKIP a near 600% rise in vote share in every other constituency they try it, then bring it onantifrank1 said:Any lasting significance from Newark?
1) The Conservatives have the appetite for a fight.
2) They seem to have effectively test driven an anti-UKIP tactical voting strategy.
3) Labour don't seem willing to get stuck in.
4) UKIP have a poor ground game still.
5) the Lib Dem vote is soft as butter.
I agree with you re the BBC D-Day, almost cried in front of my dad earlier!
0 -
Agreed.antifrank1 said:Any lasting significance from Newark?
1) The Conservatives have the appetite for a fight.
To defend their heartlands. They were nowhere to be seen in Manchester. The lost Corby by a mile.
2) They seem to have effectively test driven an anti-UKIP tactical voting strategy.
Is there much/any evidence for this?
3) Labour don't seem willing to get stuck in.
Labour don't seem willing to throw away good money in a seat they have zero chance of winning in a month of Thursdays.
4) UKIP have a poor ground game still.
Evidence?
5) the Lib Dem vote is soft as butter.
0 -
I could not find a single post on the most important by-election yesterday.
Labour gained a seat from the SNP.
Tories gaining votes in Scotland. Perhaps the independence campaign surrounding NO is helping them. SNP down 10%. Ouch !!0 -
If political leadership is the art of marshalling your supporters and convincing them that your views are right, it seems that Mr Tyndall recognises that Cameron is a very effective leader. It is notable how high his ratings are amongst declared Tory voters.
It is is possible that, as Corporeal argued in his header that he may update, that UKIP may redefine the right of British politics. It is also possible that the defection of the Faragistas and Helmerites into the political cul de sac of kipperism, that the rump Tory party becomes more reformed in a centrist model. In other words: some supporters are better out than in.
Certainly I would tactically vote cameroonite to keep out a kipper.Flightpath said:I find Mr Tyndall tiresome in his rubbishing of things he is prejudiced against, based on nothing but his prejudices, and his zealotry on the part of the misconceptions which drives his prejudices.
People like Mr Tyndall are not blinkered minds, they are closed minds and I am fed up with reading their one-eyed nonsense.0 -
I agree about the historical perspective (although I think that process is slowing down somewhat, even if we're not at the 'end of history').Luckyguy1983 said:
I agree there's a logic to what you're saying. And comparison to a marketplace is a fair one. But I still think you are thinking far too statically. You are thinking there is basic common sense and right-thinking, and either side there are extremes. That's an illusion. We think of our post-modernist 21st century view as inviolable, but it is likely to seem as outdated in 100 years as the views of 1900 do today.corporeal said:
Not entirely so no.
You can argue about the efficiency of the system (and it is much more complicated than one spectrum) but there is an essential logic to it.
I wouldn't characterise it like that as such.
There is a spectrum (or a large numbers of spectrums that people reduce and combine for the ease of handling), and while that spectrum moves around it also exists.
Representative democracy is a way of interpreting the overall mass of public opinion. There's a lot of analogies you can use.
Public opinion does shift, and can be shifted. But it usually does so relatively slowly (moving the centre-ground is more a case of re-aligning the party loyalty of groups of voters rather than changing their political views as such.
Where the centre ground of the electorate is at any point can be found by aggregating and analysing the views of the electorate at the time.
To link this back to my Lib Dem views, what FPTP does is converts this public opinion into power a very particular way (i.e. strong winners for a particular plurality). It also restricts and concentrates party support in a way that obscures anything beyond the broadest and simplest interpretations of public opinion.
So I support a more proportional system, and indeed coalitions since I think they better reflect public opinion by providing more avenues for it to express itself. Greater liquidity leads to a more efficient market place.0 -
@BobaFett Labour isn't served well by comfort blankets. Crawl back under your duvet of self-delusion, but at some point Labour will need to start trying to win those midfield battles. Attitudes like yours will result in nonchalant explanations next year why retaining the same seat tally was very good in the circumstances.0
-
You must take people to be compete morons.Ishmael_X said:
There is recent polling, covered on here, showing that the topics about which UKIP voters are least fussed are Cameron, and gay marriage (which I assume is what you mean by "everything they dislike"). But however much you loathe him, it would still be rational to vote for him IF you are serious about wanting to fight and win an in-out referendum.isam said:
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
EDIT: To be fair, if they do vote for him, they are idiots so he would be right I suppose
UKIP = FRIT.
Why would Kippers vote for someone who would campaign to stay in the EU? They despise Europhilia so why would they vote for a Europhile like Cameron who they believe to have destroyed the Tory Party.
The Kippers' aim is not to aid the Tory Party but to replace it.
0 -
Nope, politicians do not reflect the public. Politicians by their very nature are dishonest and manipulative. That is one of the traits that sets them apart from the wider public and is also why they are held in such low esteem. If you think politicians reflect the public then it is you, not I who has a very low opinion of the public.matt said:
Simple and simpleton. Congratulations. Politicians reflect the public. You dislike the public because you think that you're cleverer than them. Your call.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope the underlying principle is that politicians are fundamentally dishonest. That is a very different thing. When it comes to lacking intellectual capacity you are clearly showing that in spades.matt said:Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.
0 -
Thanks for clearing up that your Councillors, MEPs and leader are by their nature dishonest and manipulative.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, politicians do not reflect the public. Politicians by their very nature are dishonest and manipulative. That is one of the traits that sets them apart from the wider public and is also why they are held in such low esteem. If you think politicians reflect the public then it is you, not I who has a very low opinion of the public.matt said:
Simple and simpleton. Congratulations. Politicians reflect the public. You dislike the public because you think that you're cleverer than them. Your call.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope the underlying principle is that politicians are fundamentally dishonest. That is a very different thing. When it comes to lacking intellectual capacity you are clearly showing that in spades.matt said:Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.
0 -
Again not much I would disagree with there except perhaps for the lessons that should be learnt. I think that the parties might perhaps read too much into the result and therefore draw the wrong conclusion. If the Tories believe that they gave UKIP a spanking because of something they did rather than because of the nature of the constituency then they may find they have drawn the wrong conclusions.ToryJim said:@Richard_Tyndall
Newark doesn't impact much external to the parties however it probably has impact within. The result boosts the Conservatives morale, that shouldn't be underestimated. It means that more people will put more effort in over the next year. That increases Tory chances, also having in their perception given UKIP a spanking they will be looking for ways of doing it again.
For Labour the result can only increase doubts about their positioning and strategy. This is a downside for them as parties that have significant doubts about themselves often find ways to communicate those doubts more widely to the electorate.
For Lib Dems the only strategy they have left is to retreat to their re doubts circle the wagons and hope there aren't too many scalps.
It doesn't change the geography but it does alter the disposition of the forces ranging over it.0 -
Nigel Farage is a politician, therefore dishonest and manipulative.
I personally would not go that far myself.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope, politicians do not reflect the public. Politicians by their very nature are dishonest and manipulative. That is one of the traits that sets them apart from the wider public and is also why they are held in such low esteem. If you think politicians reflect the public then it is you, not I who has a very low opinion of the public.matt said:
Simple and simpleton. Congratulations. Politicians reflect the public. You dislike the public because you think that you're cleverer than them. Your call.Richard_Tyndall said:
Nope the underlying principle is that politicians are fundamentally dishonest. That is a very different thing. When it comes to lacking intellectual capacity you are clearly showing that in spades.matt said:Let's be clear, from even the pseudo-bright UKIP-friendly commentators one sees here, the underlying principle is that the public are sheep. It's like watching early stage Leninism and 1917. But without the intellectual capacity. Why don't they come out and say that they don't like brown people. It would be quicker and more honest: a Greek philosopher Answer perhaps.
0 -
Because if you are serious about wanting a referendum it is much more important that he is offering the referendum than how he intends to campaign on it. You can only beat him in a fight if there is a fight in the first place.BobaFett said:
You must take people to be compete morons.Ishmael_X said:
There is recent polling, covered on here, showing that the topics about which UKIP voters are least fussed are Cameron, and gay marriage (which I assume is what you mean by "everything they dislike"). But however much you loathe him, it would still be rational to vote for him IF you are serious about wanting to fight and win an in-out referendum.isam said:
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
EDIT: To be fair, if they do vote for him, they are idiots so he would be right I suppose
UKIP = FRIT.
Why would Kippers vote for someone who would campaign to stay in the EU? They despise Europhilia so why would they vote for a Europhile like Cameron who they believe to have destroyed the Tory Party.
The Kippers' aim is not to aid the Tory Party but to replace it.0 -
Read Anthony Wells' analysis and come back to me.antifrank1 said:@BobaFett Labour isn't served well by comfort blankets. Crawl back under your duvet of self-delusion, but at some point Labour will need to start trying to win those midfield battles. Attitudes like yours will result in nonchalant explanations next year why retaining the same seat tally was very good in the circumstances.
Gordon Brown's ratio of defending Labour held seats was better than Cameron's. We all know what happened in 2010.
You are reading far, far to much into a seat which Labour did not fight and where the Kippers did not win. You know me better than comfort blankets.
I predicted an easy Tory win from the outset - go back and check my posts when the poll was announced.
0 -
That is one of the most wonderful pieces of irony I have ever read. You don't agree with what I say and don't like the fact that I articulate a view you disagree with and therefore you want to cover your ears and go la la la la la.Flightpath said:I find Mr Tyndall tiresome in his rubbishing of things he is prejudiced against, based on nothing but his prejudices, and his zealotry on the part of the misconceptions which drives his prejudices.
People like Mr Tyndall are not blinkered minds, they are closed minds and I am fed up with reading their one-eyed nonsense.
All you reveal is your own prejudice which (unlike you apparently) I am more than happy to observe and highlight.0 -
I didnt necessarily mean gay marriage, thats a bit of an irrelevance. I meant the effect of mass immigration on communities, towns changing in character, pensioners getting 0.5% on their savings, being more interested in PR than policy etcIshmael_X said:
There is recent polling, covered on here, showing that the topics about which UKIP voters are least fussed are Cameron, and gay marriage (which I assume is what you mean by "everything they dislike"). But however much you loathe him, it would still be rational to vote for him IF you are serious about wanting to fight and win an in-out referendum.isam said:
I find it utterly incrdible that Toiries expect UKIP supporters to vote for a man who supports everything they dislike about the country and defends nothing they consider important, just so he can spend two years telling the country that they are a load of idiotsSean_F said:UKIP are (rightly) following the SNP strategy of maximising electoral representation at every level.
Whatever the outcome of September's referendum, the SNP have already won extra autonomy for Scotland.
If you want out of the EU, the sensible thing is to elect people who make that their aim.
EDIT: To be fair, if they do vote for him, they are idiots so he would be right I suppose
UKIP = FRIT.
I dont loathe Cameron, I just think he is a bit of a phoney really, and maybe its cutting myself nose off to spite my face referendum wise, but I couldnt vote for someone who I fundamentally disagree with on almost everything.
0 -
Cameron is not completely happy with free movement of people within the EU. He has already suggested that new entrants to the EU should not be free to move until the economy of that nation achieves a certain higher level of prosperity. If we left the EU there would be irresistible pressure to limit migration from the EU, it would make sense and it would be achieved.isam said:Most UKIP voters are motivated by a desire to have controlled immigration. Cameron has already said that if we leave the EU he will still allow free movement of people from the EU. So why would they vote for him?
0 -
Er no. If Hannan was PM then he would be campaigning on the BOO side of the referendum which would make a huge difference.john_zims said:@Richard_Tyndall
'Nope, we just recognise a bunch of liars when we see them.'
UKIP bang on for years about the need for an EU referendum and get one,they then do a massive u-turn and come up with endless excuses not to have one, who are the liars?
Even if Daniel Hannan was the Tory PM UKIP would find some excuses.
You don't seem to understand that Farage & co are on the gravy train and have no intention of getting off anytime soon,hook,line & sinker come to mind.0
