politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Vote UKIP get a LAB government might not have the potency t

HurstLlama said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.

Nonetheless, at some point the effects of Labour's efforts to alter election demographics must bear fruit. As well as the first generation there'll soon be a second, and at that point, the opportunity to vote to limit immigration becomes a dead letter.

UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.

Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?

I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.

Whether it will work or not is unclear; it's a Labour wheeze, and Labour f<cks up everything it touches, so it probably won't work. Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.

There seems no reason why Muslims would be any different so in general I doubt this wheeze will work. Muslims will grow up, work hard, become prosperous and then vote against a Labour party that wants to punish and expropriate them for having shunned a client's life on benefits to do so.

Where it will work is in ensuring that nobody with UKIP's views will ever get near meaningful power, and no mainstream party will ever get near UKIP's views. 2015/2017 is, I infer, the last time anyone will offer a referendum.

Bond_James_Bond said:

HurstLlama said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.


UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.

Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?

I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, something we can address without needing to leave the EU.

Whether it will work or not is unclear; it's a Labour wheeze, and Labour f

Its not just asians that vote for left parties, its all immigrants in all western states, its a social issue that left wing parties care about the poor and the marginalised (like immigrants) so immigrants vote for the party that will take care of them.
Just like old people vote for right wing paties because they offer a sence of maintaining the past which they grew up in.
It happens everywhere there is democracy.

Bond_James_Bond said:

I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.

Conservatives can win asian areas in the right circumstances - look at these Coventry council elections in 2004 paying particular attention to Foleshill ward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Council_election,_2004

Conservative Shabbir Ahmed 2,171
Conservative Mohammed Asif 2,155
Labour Malkiat Singh Auluck 1,923
Labour Satnam Singh Gill 1,899
Conservative Harjinder Singh Sehmi 1,876
Labour Marilyn Ann (Mal) Mutton 1,856
Liberal Democrat Geoffrey Brian Sewards 516
Socialist Alternative Lakshman James Hensman 33

And they can get beaten by maverick parties to their left as happened in Tower Hamlets and Bradford West too - so whilst they do break overwhelmingly Labour, particularly Asian Muslims it is not an invincible crucible.

Speedy said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

HurstLlama said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I stand corrected. Maybe I recalled a regional number - 25% looks low versus what one observes in any London school playground.


UKIP has one narrow window of opportunity to obtain what it wants, but not being very smart it's unclear its supporters understand this.

Mr Bond, your analysis of the demographics of the UK is interesting. If you are correct, is not the logical conclusion that it will be impossible for the UK to ever have a right of centre government after about 2020?

Where it will work is in ensuring that nobody with UKIP's views will ever get near meaningful power, and no mainstream party will ever get near UKIP's views. 2015/2017 is, I infer, the last time anyone will offer a referendum.

Its not just asians that vote for left parties, its all immigrants in all western states, its a social issue that left wing parties care about the poor and the marginalised (like immigrants) so immigrants vote for the party that will take care of them.
Just like old people vote for right wing paties because they offer a sence of maintaining the past which they grew up in.
It happens everywhere there is democracy.

Well, quite - which goes back to the argument that if poverty were ever made history leftist parties would have to create more of it to shore up their vote. We observed this in 1997 to 2010 when Labour scoured the world for poor people to import.

Old people vote for the right because they seen what the left actually does with power; young people don't because they haven't. Old poor people vote for the left because having failed to earn it, they want it taken away from those who have, and given to themselves.

Cameron today announced an immigration system that 'puts Britain first'

Does anybody else think its quite astonishing that we would ever have an immigration system that did anything but?

'we are moving from a foreigner first immigration system to a Britain first one'

amazing really.

Bond_James_Bond said:

Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.

Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.

Flightpath said:

OllyT said:

Flightpath said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

The line could cut two ways:
frighten blue kippers back to the Conservatives
make red kippers feel more comfortable

Either works for the Conservatives, and both would be very helpful.

But how do red and blue 'kippers' live together? What kind of party is UKIP? How much traction is there for a Party of the Prejudiced?

Lib Dems managed it for years, light blue in the south and rural areas, lefties in the cities. It was only once they finally had to do something that they got rumbled, fortunately for Labour they turned out to be be pale blue.

So at its heart then UKIP is hypocritical? Like the LDs they stand for nothing?

If the numbers had workled out the LDs would have gone in coalition with labour and the non socialist tendency in them would have left. Thats what you get with a party of protest that then has to make some choices. With a UKIP party comprised as is suggested then it too would fall apart following thre first choice it had to make.

Precisely, a protest party can be all things to all people until the day of reckoning comes. The day of reckoning came for the Lib Dems in May 2010, we could wait a long time for UKIP's

Pulpstar said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

I'm sure that was the idea behind it. Asians break something like 90% for Labour, IIRC, so clearly the more Asians Labour can import, the better for Labour. This, of course, is something we can address without needing to leave the EU and on which we don't need UKIP's contribution.

Conservatives can win asian areas in the right circumstances - look at these Coventry council elections in 2004 paying particular attention to Foleshill ward

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Council_election,_2004

Conservative Shabbir Ahmed 2,171
Conservative Mohammed Asif 2,155
Labour Malkiat Singh Auluck 1,923
Labour Satnam Singh Gill 1,899
Conservative Harjinder Singh Sehmi 1,876
Labour Marilyn Ann (Mal) Mutton 1,856
Liberal Democrat Geoffrey Brian Sewards 516
Socialist Alternative Lakshman James Hensman 33

And they can get beaten by maverick parties to their left as happened in Tower Hamlets and Bradford West too - so whilst they do break overwhelmingly Labour, particularly Asian Muslims it is not an invincible crucible.

Indeed, and of course turnout in Tower Hamlets can be above 100%, given the fondness the locals have for postal voting.

Looking forward, there clearly will - eventually - be a Conservative Asian demographic, which is why Cameron is absolutely right to distance the Conservatives as far as possible as early as possible from UKIP. Having treated or been associated with them in any way will be appallingly damaging, and he needs to be crystal clear, as he has been, that UKIP has nothing to say to Conservatism. UKIP needs to die and be seen to die through an abject, genuine and total lack of support.

As someone put it nicely downthread, what the more frenzied online UKIP nutters are after is for Conservatism to be replaced by a sort of vicious right-wingery, which they can somehow misrepresent as being the real thing. In effect, the more Conservatism detoxifies itself by getting rid of them, the angrier they become with Conservatives for having rumbled them.

Cyclefree said:

MikeK said:

Another great Labour policy that need further dissemination:

ChrisWynThom ‏@ChrisWynThom 20m
UK Labour Party: "We will introduce state funded Islamic schools in 2015" http://fb.me/2O8ngjn8p

Why, dear God, why? We need social cohesion not the state funding separateness. It's as if no-one in the Labour hierarchy has read the reports into what happened in some Birmingham schools. Or, if they have, they have not understood why teaching children to think of themselves as separate and better than the country in which they live is so dangerous, for them and us.

UKIPers are a bit slow.

Don't fall for the spin from the noted Islamophobic website.

1) The Story is from February,

2) It turns out to be personal opinion of one Labour party activist

3) It is not Labour policy

4) Labour's education team have denied it at the time

Apart from that, the headline is accurate.

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.

Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.

That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.

That amounts to saying the political spectrum is moving steadily leftwards so that its older denizens in staying still end up on the right.

This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?

The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).

I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.

Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?

My guess is the arab-israeli ones.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?

The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).

I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.

Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?

The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!

OldKingCole said:

For those who think that ethnic minorities don’t/won’t support UKIP or Kipper-type policies I would suggest you look no further than the family of Priti Patel MP (Con).

I voted UKIP at the Euros (only). I did vote Blue at the Council elections.

Those anyone know what this electoral voting system is, and what are its merits?

It's how the Tory candidate in Louth was chosen.

Each candidate was interviewed and put through a Q&A session from the floor before a vote from the audience.

The winner had to receive 50% of the votes cast. The lowest scoring candidates were eliminated before a re-ballot, until the rule was satisfied.

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Victoria-Atkins-named-Conservative-Parliamentary/story-21965862-detail/story.html

Bond_James_Bond said:

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.

Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.

That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.

That amounts to saying the political spectrum is moving steadily leftwards so that its older denizens in staying still end up on the right.

This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.

No, it's more that there's a tendency for people who once held left of centre views to shift rightwards as they get older. To take one example, the British Social Attitudes survey found that people born between 1945 and 1965 became increasingly hostile towards immigration between 2000 and 2012. The same shift has happened with attitudes towards the EU. Most polls find that most 60+ voters want to leave the EU. Back in 1975, these people were 20-30 year olds strongly in favour of the EEC.

THANK YOU. The polls for ages have been indicating UKIP voters are pretty split between preferring the Tories and Labour. Using who people voted for in 2010 has ALWAYS been a very flawed metric -- that election was when the Tories were at a 20-year peak and Labour were at their second-lowest point ever, so any subsample of almost any group is going to be skewed to the Tories. It was always ridiculous to think that a study solely based on 2010 represented the natural/normal state of affairs.

While UKIP have picked off their fair share of lifelong Tory voters and lifelong Labour voters, the main people they've been winning over imo are the typical swing voters. Most swing/floating voters are not "in the centre ground" like Westminster talking heads all think, they're generally people who are even less political than most of the public and don't pay all that much attention. Many of them have been driven to UKIP out of sheer frustration at how poor the two main parties are and how they never seem to talk about things they care about. Most of UKIP's hotspots (with some exceptions) are in areas which are traditionally Con-Lab swing areas, with loads of floating voters.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Those anyone know what this electoral voting system is, and what are its merits?

It's how the Tory candidate in Louth was chosen.

Each candidate was interviewed and put through a Q&A session from the floor before a vote from the audience.

The winner had to receive 50% of the votes cast. The lowest scoring candidates were eliminated before a re-ballot, until the rule was satisfied.

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Victoria-Atkins-named-Conservative-Parliamentary/story-21965862-detail/story.html

Exhaustive ballot, IIRC. It’s roughly how the Pope is elected. The advantage is that people can change their minds about canndidates as the ballot progresses, as opposed, for example, STV where one has to decide once and for all the order of ones preferences.

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.

Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.

That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

Iran-Iraq war
Libya bombing
Computers
Internet
End of Cold War
End of Communism
European Union
Eurozone
Eurozone Crisis
World financial crisis
War on Terror
Iraq War
Yugoslavia
Mass Immigration
Russian resurgence
China a Superpower
Gulf War
Third Oil shock
Asian financial crisis
Dot Com boom
Dot Com bust
Housing boom
Housing bust
New Labour
Thatcher ousted
ect ect ect.

We can make a new "We didn't start the fire" song.

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Those anyone know what this electoral voting system is, and what are its merits?

It's how the Tory candidate in Louth was chosen.

Each candidate was interviewed and put through a Q&A session from the floor before a vote from the audience.

The winner had to receive 50% of the votes cast. The lowest scoring candidates were eliminated before a re-ballot, until the rule was satisfied.

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Victoria-Atkins-named-Conservative-Parliamentary/story-21965862-detail/story.html

An open primary with run-offs? To be cynical, the "open" part means the local party's input is reduced, but the non-party members involved become more likely to vote Conservative in future.

So not AV?

TGOHF said:

hucks67 said:

Is it true what UKIP are saying that from 1st November 2014, the UK would not be able to legislate for an in/out referendum without the consent of the other 26 EU countries ?

I can't see that this would be true, as I can't see other EU countries agreeing to be restricted in whether they can hold a referendum or not.

Its nonsense.

Score one for the BBC!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

Why did the BBC ban that?

Relax, TSE! That's Two Tribes.
Official video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

Relax was the FGTH song that was banned!

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met .

It's also very consistent with a substantial range of polling - but don't expect the activists to accept that!

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0

Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.

People who remember the 1950s are no longer middle aged. Nor is it obvious that life was simpler then -- the cold war was at its height with very real fears of mutually assured destruction. Britain was humiliated over Suez. At a more local level were razor gangs and smash and grab raids. Enoch Powell was encouraging mass immigration.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0

Why did the BBC ban that?

Relax, TSE! That's Two Tribes.

Relax was the FGTH song that was banned!

Oops, me getting something wrong on 80s pop music.

Two Tribes official video here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWVpcypf0w

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0

Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)

Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U

Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0

Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)

Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U

Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan

You meant to type many saving graces.

How can you diss the man who brought us Steps, Rick Astley and Jason Donovan.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Speedy said:

The events of the past 30 years do tend to produce change.
Think of it, make a list of what has happened since 1984:

This was UK number 1 from 30 years ago this month:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic0tVFYvRZ0

Things have changed, though I still think Justin Bieber songs will not be considered a clasic 30 years from now. (Gosh that will be 2044, we live in what we considered to be the far future though we don't realise it)

Well, this was number 1 exactly 25 years ago this week:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUmFD8_0q9U

Pete Waterman's one saving grace is that he's a big train-fan

You meant to type many saving graces.

How can you diss the man who brought us Steps, Rick Astley and Jason Donovan.

I was only joking TSE! I do remember Rick and Jason's 80s hits very well. Steps I'm not too familiar with as I Iost interest in music during most of the 90s.

Sean_F said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Older people tend to become Conservative; Labour likes to caricature this as being because they are reactionary old fossils, but it's just as probable that they become so because the older you are, the greater the likelihood that you've observed and been personally damaged by a Labour government.

Or it might be that older people do not change their views at all but what was once radical is now commonplace. Someone who marched in the 1960s to ban the bomb will now find the threat of nuclear war has abated. Or for feminism in the 1970s will see that women are paid the same as men and are holding down professional jobs -- doctors, lawyers -- once dominated by men. Gay rights? Anti-racist? The same. Maybe voters are rocks as the sands of time are blown around them.

That can sometimes happen, but there's no question at all that people are more likely to vote for right wing parties as they get older; also, people get more Eurosceptic and less happy about immigration as they get older. Typically, cross-breaks show 50-60% of the over 60s voting for the Conservatives and UKIP. There's no way 50-60% of the same age cohort were voted for right wing parties 30 years ago.

That amounts to saying the political spectrum is moving steadily leftwards so that its older denizens in staying still end up on the right.

This may be so, although it sits awkwardly with the fact that Labour looks quite right wing now compared to what it looked under, say, Kinnock.

No, it's more that there's a tendency for people who once held left of centre views to shift rightwards as they get older. To take one example, the British Social Attitudes survey found that people born between 1945 and 1965 became increasingly hostile towards immigration between 2000 and 2012. The same shift has happened with attitudes towards the EU. Most polls find that most 60+ voters want to leave the EU. Back in 1975, these people were 20-30 year olds strongly in favour of the EEC.

Those 60+ year olds might well vote in favour of the EEC today, given half the chance, as might also the other age groups. Sadly that chance will never be provided.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

MikeK said:

rcs1000 said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

25% of under-5s are Muslim, I gather

The actual number is 9.1% (http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census).

But I would also point out that one is really saying that 9.1% of children under 5 are born to Muslim parents. From my experience at a 60% Asian immigrant comprehensive, I can assure you that a majority of these will be on the "titularly Muslim, but drink alcohol and don't even know where the local Mosque us" to "don't give a shit about religion" to "of course God does't exist" spectrum,

I'd like to know how you can justify such a sweeping statement as fact @rcs1000?

The clue is in the "in my experience". What's your experience with Muslims, MikeK?

As far as facts go, I believe that more than 60% of self identified 18-25 year Muslims drink alcohol. (Not that different to the proportion of self identified Jews that eat pepperoni, I suspect).

I have plenty of experience with muslims, having fought in 3 wars against them. If you could read the original arabic of what they write (like I do) and not the phoney translations, you will find out what they think of christian Englishmen and their women. But live in your dream world.

Not doubting you at all Mr Kay, but which wars were those out of interest?

The First Crusade, The Second Crusade and The Third Crusade!

Every Israeli I've ever met was relieved to bits to get through their military service.

malcolmg said:

JackW said:

BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS **** BREAKING WIND NEWS ****

The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest McARSE Scottish Referendum Projection (Changes Since 15st July)

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country ?

YES 37% (NC) .. No 63% (NC)

Turnout Projection 81.5% (+1%)

......................................................................

WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
McARSE - My Caledonian Anonymous Random Selection of Electors

YAWN

Very funny BBC sports report last night - the reporter, getting them as close as she could, said: English, Welsh and Scottish athletes have won medals today..

Would love to take a look at the BBC memo instructing how to deal with UK athletes/medal winners...

TOPPING said:

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.

Pretty much desribes @isam‌ of this parish down to a tee.

Yep. What gives the UKIP game away is the yearning for a return to the oppression of homosexuals, 1950s-style. That this can seriously matter to them so much points up both the triviality and the nastiness of this bit of the spectrum.

In a way, the Tories actually need UKIP to act as a vessel for this kind of poison. A UKIP permanently stranded on about 4% of the vote would be ideal for both the Tories, to whom they'd present no threat, and for the UKIP troughers, who'd be at no serious risk either of having to do any work or relinquish any perks.

If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.

Bond_James_Bond said:

TOPPING said:

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.

Pretty much desribes @isam‌ of this parish down to a tee.

If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.

You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

TOPPING said:

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.

Pretty much desribes @isam‌ of this parish down to a tee.

If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.

You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.

You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

TOPPING said:

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.

Pretty much desribes @isam‌ of this parish down to a tee.

If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.

You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.

You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.

Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.

So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.

UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.

We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.

MikeK said:

Speedy said:

MrJones said:

Speedy said:

Peak time for London real estate?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-29/london-s-gherkin-tower-offered-for-sale-by-its-lenders.html

Or buy in pounds/dollars and sell in a hard currency.

True the debt was accumulated in 2007 and in swiss franks but lets see how much it will fetch against its original price of 1 billion $ .

Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP 7m
London's famed 'Gherkin' is on sale for £650 million http://u.afp.com/edU

When accounting for inflation its the same price (no London bubble here).

Speedy said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Speedy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

TOPPING said:

MrsB said:

I know this is anecdotal but... the UKIP voters I have met (NOT the UKIP activists, just the voters) seem to be middle-aged or older people who have been disappointed in life and just want to go back to when things were simpler and they felt comfortable that they knew what was going on, and threats were easier to understand and less common. So there will be different factions, because what they feel comfortable with is either traditional urban WWC, or undisturbed rural life full of hunting, shooting and forelock tugging. Neither involves any role for women except as cooks and cleaners or jolly hockey sticks upper class ladies, and neither involves any non-whites. A lot of UKIP support is just people howling that they don't like modern life and can they please go back to the 1950s when things were a lot simpler.

Pretty much desribes @isam‌ of this parish down to a tee.

If UKIP did not exist the Tories might perhaps invent them. Having an internal enemy you've isolated and got shot of does no harm, as Labour found with Militant Tendency.

You could argue, militant probably cost Labour two elections.

You could also argue that militant wasn't a separate party.

Well, quite - they infiltrated the party and caused it to be associated with a lot of extreme views that bore little relation to what the majority of its supporters expected it to do in power. Militant did this as part of a deliberate strategy of entryism knowing they could never get themselves elected if they did stand as an actual party.

So they invaded a suitable host and meanwhile tried to argue that they were simply a newspaper, and not a party within a party.

UKIP's problem is they lack the self-awareness Militant had, the ability to see how you are seen. They have consequently come out into the open and been apparently surprised to be spotted as racists, loonies and fruitcakes right away. They continue to insist that dog whistles aren't dog whistles, which is to pi55 down the voters' necks and tell them it's raining.

We are now at or past peak kipper and in 10 years' time or so UKIP will be an issue for the Tories like Militant was an issue for Labour in 1997.

UKIP is a separate party and cannot be internally dealt with like militant.
It will be a problem for the tories as the LD were for Labour.

It's the fact that Militant weren't a separate party that made Militant so hard to deal with. UKIP is a separate party and thus the Tories can point to UKIP and say "You see all this? This isn't us".

SeanT said:

Extraordinary video from Israel of young Israelis, in Tel Aviv, apparently singing and cheering the death of Gazan children:

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/gaza-graveyard-sing-joyful-israeli-youths

Sample lines from the *song*:

I hate all the Arabs.
Oh-oh-oh-oh
Gaza is a graveyard
Gaza is a graveyard
Gaza is a graveyard
Gaza is a graveyard



Olé, olé, olé-olé-olé
In Gaza there’s no studying
No children are left there,
Olé, olé, olé-olé-olé,

The Mail have picked up on it as well

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709233/Israeli-leader-Netanyahu-vows-continue-strikes-Gaza-entire-Hamas-tunnel-network-destroyed-North-Korea-deny-providing-arms-Palestinian-group.html

@sean_fear they don't actually remember the 1950s, it's just that they hark after what they thnk they were like. I mean society in the 1950s, not the Cold War politics.