politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling says UKIP are the most extreme and the least fi
“I am going to read out some things both favourable and unfavourable that have been said about various political parties. Which of these, if any, do you think apply to…”
Comments
-
First?0
-
FPT:
I genuinely do not understand how anyone can, once their partisan blinkers are removed, argue with that. It's ludicrous, laughable and delusional behaviour.Beverley_C said:Frankly, it is none of Scotland's business how England spends English money inside English borders and vice versa. It has to be devolution for all or devolution for none. Anything else is simply unfair.
It also has the benefit of being so simple to understand that 99% of non-blinkered people won't be taken in by the self-serving, dissembling bullshit trying to persuade them otherwise.0 -
These people never remove their partizan blinkers.Anorak said:FPT:
I genuinely do not understand how anyone can, once their partisan blinkers are removed, argue with that. It's ludicrous, laughable and delusional behaviour.Beverley_C said:Frankly, it is none of Scotland's business how England spends English money inside English borders and vice versa. It has to be devolution for all or devolution for none. Anything else is simply unfair.
It also has the benefit of being so simple to understand that 99% of non-blinkered people won't be taken in by the self-serving, dissembling bullshit trying to persuade them otherwise.
That's why to them the fact that the Tory party might benefit is the one and only thing that matters on the issue.0 -
The Euro elections are also low turnout and easy for a party who has a single issue and that issue is Europe to make a splash in. I'm not saying UKIP are going to be put back in their box at the 2015 election, I'm just saying anyone betting on more than 10 seats for them is throwing money away.0
-
Cameron's fruitcakes comment was too long ago to matter. I think it will be more likely a product of the Tories joining with the Guardian to portray UKIP as racist through constant stories of minor UKIP members saying things on Facebook etc.
This was obviously stupid of the Tories, as UKIP are undoubtedly here to stay, which means future Tory success depends on an alliance/merger under FPTP or a coalition under PR. Regrettably for conservatives, the Tory leadership is too thick to think more than about three months ahead, as has been shown on a number of occasions.0 -
The anti-UKIP vote at Newark is a myth. That is not to say it will not happen elsewhere but using Newark as a (false) example is just lazy.0
-
Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
Ha! Govt statement from Nov warns against rushed answer to English question, says it shld be "thorough & rigorous": https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264086/8749.pdf0 -
Right-wing = evil in the public's mind.
UKIP are more right-wing than the Tories so are incredibly evil indeed. And racist.
Completely bonkers, but there we go.0 -
Even as UKIP supporter I agree with you on that. I would be amazed (and delighted) if they got more than 5 or 6 seats at the very best and would expect 1 or 2 to be more likely.Alistair said:The Euro elections are also low turnout and easy for a party who has a single issue and that issue is Europe to make a splash in. I'm not saying UKIP are going to be put back in their box at the 2015 election, I'm just saying anyone betting on more than 10 seats for them is throwing money away.
0 -
I guess the spin you'd like to put on this is that "thorough and rigorous" means it can't be done before next May.BenM said:Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
Ha! Govt statement from Nov warns against rushed answer to English question, says it shld be "thorough & rigorous": https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264086/8749.pdf
Which is rubbish of course.0 -
I strongly disagree that it's the one and only thing that matters. (It's a lovely bonus, mind you)CopperSulphate said:
These people never remove their partizan blinkers.Anorak said:FPT:
I genuinely do not understand how anyone can, once their partisan blinkers are removed, argue with that. It's ludicrous, laughable and delusional behaviour.Beverley_C said:Frankly, it is none of Scotland's business how England spends English money inside English borders and vice versa. It has to be devolution for all or devolution for none. Anything else is simply unfair.
It also has the benefit of being so simple to understand that 99% of non-blinkered people won't be taken in by the self-serving, dissembling bullshit trying to persuade them otherwise.
That's why to them the fact that the Tory party might benefit is the one and only thing that matters on the issue.
But Beverly's concise statement resonates very strongly with the notion of fairness and parity. What what irksome but tolerable before devomax becomes untenable thereafter.0 -
Interview with guy who bet £900,000 on "no"
https://audioboo.fm/boos/2500068-jeremy-speaks-to-gambler-who-placed-900-000-bet-on-no-vote0 -
Yes, prioritise meddling with the constitution over everything else!CopperSulphate said:
I guess the spin you'd like to put on this is that "thorough and rigorous" means it can't be done before next May.BenM said:Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
Ha! Govt statement from Nov warns against rushed answer to English question, says it shld be "thorough & rigorous": https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264086/8749.pdf
Which is rubbish of course.
Tory thinking is mad.0 -
How dare Cameron throw bodily fluids over his own party in favour of The Scots?Surely he must be disciplined with a sharp stick?Are the Tories revolting?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb1d4b70-41b9-11e4-b98f-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3E1hTsapW
0 -
If Cameron wants to bring in EV4EL then surely the vote should only be taken by English MPs, in which he has a majority anyway. The precedent has already been set with the Scottish referendum which was only voted on by Scots.
0 -
If you want to brand resolving a constitutional unfairness as "prioritising meddling with the constitution over everything else" then I think you are getting rather delusional.BenM said:
Yes, prioritise meddling with the constitution over everything else!CopperSulphate said:
I guess the spin you'd like to put on this is that "thorough and rigorous" means it can't be done before next May.BenM said:Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
Ha! Govt statement from Nov warns against rushed answer to English question, says it shld be "thorough & rigorous": https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264086/8749.pdf
Which is rubbish of course.
Tory thinking is mad.
I suppose giving Scotland devomax doesn't come under the same category for some spurious reason.0 -
I’m not sure. In the Great Liberal Revival of the 60’s the Liberals did well in Council elections and won seats. However, the actual vote was little different in the General Elections, and they didn’t, because turnout was higher.CopperSulphate said:
These people never remove their partizan blinkers.Anorak said:FPT:
I genuinely do not understand how anyone can, once their partisan blinkers are removed, argue with that. It's ludicrous, laughable and delusional behaviour.Beverley_C said:Frankly, it is none of Scotland's business how England spends English money inside English borders and vice versa. It has to be devolution for all or devolution for none. Anything else is simply unfair.
It also has the benefit of being so simple to understand that 99% of non-blinkered people won't be taken in by the self-serving, dissembling bullshit trying to persuade them otherwise.
That's why to them the fact that the Tory party might benefit is the one and only thing that matters on the issue.0 -
We've just had an independence referendum. Been in a cave?CopperSulphate said:
If you want to brand resolving a constitutional unfairness as "prioritising meddling with the constitution over everything else" then I think you are getting rather delusional.BenM said:
Yes, prioritise meddling with the constitution over everything else!CopperSulphate said:
I guess the spin you'd like to put on this is that "thorough and rigorous" means it can't be done before next May.BenM said:Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
Ha! Govt statement from Nov warns against rushed answer to English question, says it shld be "thorough & rigorous": https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264086/8749.pdf
Which is rubbish of course.
Tory thinking is mad.
I suppose giving Scotland devomax doesn't come under the same category for some spurious reason.0 -
Betting post:
1440 Kempton Pact 50-1 ew (B365, Sp Bet, SJ)0 -
Nope no idea what you're on about.BenM said:
We've just had an independence referendum. Been in a cave?CopperSulphate said:
If you want to brand resolving a constitutional unfairness as "prioritising meddling with the constitution over everything else" then I think you are getting rather delusional.BenM said:
Yes, prioritise meddling with the constitution over everything else!CopperSulphate said:
I guess the spin you'd like to put on this is that "thorough and rigorous" means it can't be done before next May.BenM said:Jeremy Cliffe @JeremyCliffe
Ha! Govt statement from Nov warns against rushed answer to English question, says it shld be "thorough & rigorous": https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264086/8749.pdf
Which is rubbish of course.
Tory thinking is mad.
I suppose giving Scotland devomax doesn't come under the same category for some spurious reason.
Are you Ed Milliband by any chance?0 -
Indeed, but not in the way I think you mean!volcanopete said:How dare Cameron throw bodily fluids over his own party in favour of The Scots?Surely he must be disciplined with a sharp stick?Are the Tories revolting?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb1d4b70-41b9-11e4-b98f-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3E1hTsapW
0 -
There's not a lot in Balls big day out at #Lab14 for the Tories to get their teeth into.
I may think that prolonging austerity just guarantees discontent and will do nothing to solve Britain's deep economic issues being made worse by Osborne, but all round Labour are a million times better than the current shower of a government.0 -
Great visual see-saw effect when you switch between ‘Extreme’ to ‘Fit to Govern’ arf..
OK, enough playing, back to work.0 -
repost fpt:
Socrates said:
Really?
UKIP are going to go into the next election being able to say they're the only party which will offer an English parliament.
"People of England. Nigel Farage is the only party leader offering to spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year, perhaps more, in setting up another layer of government and bureaucracy, and this one's a biggie - not just an assembly for 5m Scots, but another layer of government for the whole of England. Imagine having the luxury of an MP to send to the UK Parliament in London and another to the English Parliament in London. Think about all those leaflets through the door! You're crying out for more politicians - well, Nigel's the man to give them to you. Do you look longingly at those sexy new assemblies in Cardiff Bay and Edinburgh, and think "why can't England spend £400m on its own brand new massively over-budget parliament building"? - well now's your chance of having one of your own!"
Is that what UKIP are going to be treating us to in the campaign?
Hope so!0 -
64% saying UKIP are 'extreme' does seem surprisingly high. TSE is certainly right about tactical anti-UKIP voting - much to my surprise, it happened to a significant degree in Newark, amongst Labour supporters (this information came directly from a senior source with personal knowledge of the canvassing returns). How big an effect it will be is hard to say - for a starter, it can only happen in seats where UKIP are widely seen as a leading contender, and where the potential tactical voter's own preferred party doesn't seem to have a chance. There won't be many of those.0
-
I see the Mail did a poll for England and Wales:
- 16% support Barnett formula, compared to 71% against
- 65% support for EVfEL, compared to 19% against
- Should EVfEL make it impossible for a Scot to be PM: 46% yes, 34% no
- 59% support for English parliament, compared to 11% against
- Top priority for government: 31% immigration, 20% economy, 9% jobs, 9% health
It's that middle one that shows how EVfEL could break up the union far more easily than an English parliament would.0 -
To be fair, that's probably the memory of Gordon Brown, and should fade in time.Socrates said:I see the Mail did a poll for England and Wales:
- 16% support Barnett formula, compared to 71% against
- 65% support for EVfEL, compared to 19% against
- Should EVfEL make it impossible for a Scot to be PM: 46% yes, 34% no
- 59% support for English parliament, compared to 11% against
- Top priority for government: 31% immigration, 20% economy, 9% jobs, 9% health
It's that middle one that shows how EVfEL could break up the union far more easily than an English parliament would.0 -
0
-
Once you take out the usual tedious Tory bashing and promises to repeal Tory legislation on the "bedroom tax" and NHS I'm not sure some of the people in that hall were exactly enthused by Ed Balls's reality check. There's going to be a lot of disappointed Labour voters and supporters out there if your lot do regain power next year.BenM said:There's not a lot in Balls big day out at #Lab14 for the Tories to get their teeth into.
I may think that prolonging austerity just guarantees discontent and will do nothing to solve Britain's deep economic issues being made worse by Osborne, but all round Labour are a million times better than the current shower of a government.0 -
Possibly, but this will happen all over the place. If Labour don't have a majority in England, how would it be acceptable for them to have an education minister deciding non-statutory English education policy?Richard_Nabavi said:
To be fair, that's probably the memory of Gordon Brown, and should fade in time.Socrates said:I see the Mail did a poll for England and Wales:
- 16% support Barnett formula, compared to 71% against
- 65% support for EVfEL, compared to 19% against
- Should EVfEL make it impossible for a Scot to be PM: 46% yes, 34% no
- 59% support for English parliament, compared to 11% against
- Top priority for government: 31% immigration, 20% economy, 9% jobs, 9% health
It's that middle one that shows how EVfEL could break up the union far more easily than an English parliament would.0 -
The next election will mostly see the Conservatives and Labour directing their fire at each other, rather than UKIP.
And, the constituencies where UKIP are strong (eg Thurrock, Boston, Clacton, Grimsby, Rotherham, Thanet South etc.) are ones in which UKIP's message is not seen as extreme.
0 -
Nasty attack on English rights by the evil Tories,the yellow libdems and extremist Ukip.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/09/21/the-nasty-coalition-move-to-make-english-human-rights-subservient-to-business-profits-david-hencke/0 -
Another blank sheet of paper.BenM said:There's not a lot in Balls big day out at #Lab14 for the Tories to get their teeth into.
I may think that prolonging austerity just guarantees discontent and will do nothing to solve Britain's deep economic issues being made worse by Osborne, but all round Labour are a million times better than the current shower of a government.
I assume all the juicy policy announcements and detailled plans are being kept back for other Ed's speech ?
0 -
I wonder if I have this right - Gilt rates very low so annuities are very poor. George Osborne sees the opportunity to release money for building infrastructure by offering a guarantee to the annuity industry for returns on investment in gas, electricity and water. The guaranteed returns would reduce the strain on funding company pensions, improve pensions as well. Ed Miliband really doesn't want a wall of money to be invested, helping the country out of the slump, so he makes threats of nationalisation and pitches a 2% profit limit - safely under the return on gilts - and hopes for power cuts before the election. Doncaster jobs are a price worth paying. Annuity companies relax, tell GO they would like to help but won't. GO deep sixes the annuity companies at the next opportunity.0
-
I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.0
-
I agree, it's a mess. In practice, though, it might not be quite as much of a mess as it looks, because the anomaly only applies in certain circumstances. In very broad-brush terms:Socrates said:Possibly, but this will happen all over the place. If Labour don't have a majority in England, how would it be acceptable for them to have an education minister deciding non-statutory English education policy?
1) Con Maj - No anomaly, the same party has a majority in both the UK and England.
2) Reasonable size Lab Maj - Ditto
3) Small Lab Maj - Anomaly might apply, although if Labour have any sized majority, then they've probably at least got most seats in England as well.
4) Hung parliament - this is the interesting one. I think the real significance of EV4EL would apply here, in that it would make a coalition involving the largest English party more attractive than a coalition involving the largest UK party.
0 -
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.0 -
It seems unexceptional to me.volcanopete said:Nasty attack on English rights by the evil Tories,the yellow libdems and extremist Ukip.
http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2014/09/21/the-nasty-coalition-move-to-make-english-human-rights-subservient-to-business-profits-david-hencke/
0 -
Tactical voting only has value if you think a party is going to win the election. UKIP for all the progress they have made are not going to be providing the country with a Prime Minister anytime soon so a tactical vote against UKIP is a wasted vote in almost all cases.
Lets take a seat where UKIP are threatening the Tories. Are Labour and Libdems going to vote for the Tory candidate to stop UKIP and in doing so improve the chances of the Tories staying in power. The idea is absurd. Labour and Libdem have traditionally joined in voting against the Tories. They are not going (well other than complete fools) to vote Tory and lessen the chance of a Labour Government.
Similarly, are Tory voter in a seat where UKIP are challenging Labour going to vote Labour to stop UKIP and in doing so help Labour to throw the Tories out?
Yes you may get Libdem voters voting for Labour as they have done for decades but that is nothing new and next year there are likely far fewer of them to do so.
As for the Libdems they cannot afford to lend their votes to anyone this time.
Why would Tories and Labour voters vote to stop UKIP and in doing so potentially vote their main opponents into Downing Street. Its a nonsense. I doubt there is a more ridiculous and frankly delusional idea doing the rounds at the moment than the idea that there will be any serious tactical voting against UKIP.0 -
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
0 -
I agree that 4 is the big one. Would the LDs have signed a formal coalition deal with the Tories in the knowledge that this would have given the Tories an overall majority for England? From an LD perspective, it would have given complete carte blanche to Gove, for example.Richard_Nabavi said:
I agree, it's a mess. In practice, though, it might not be quite as much of a mess as it looks, because the anomaly only applies in certain circumstances. In very broad-brush terms:Socrates said:Possibly, but this will happen all over the place. If Labour don't have a majority in England, how would it be acceptable for them to have an education minister deciding non-statutory English education policy?
1) Con Maj - No anomaly, the same party has a majority in both the UK and England.
2) Reasonable size Lab Maj - Ditto
3) Small Lab Maj - Anomaly might apply, although if Labour have any sized majority, then they've probably at least got most seats in England as well.
4) Hung parliament - this is the interesting one. I think the real significance of EV4EL would apply here, in that it would make a coalition involving the largest English party more attractive than a coalition involving the largest UK party.
The other way of looking at it is that it is possible in the future that Labour and the LDs -representing over 50% of the votes in England and the UK generally - might agree a coalition, but that for England this might not work because with 35% of the vote the Tories have obtained a majority of English seats. Thus, policies agreed by parties that have received the majority support of English voters would be unable to pursue a legislative agenda for England.
It's all very interesting - and important - stuff.
0 -
I have no relation with any political party, such views are my own and mine alone. And it seems 64% of the rest of the country too.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
Don't put the cart before the horse, I think UKIP have a disproportionate amount of closet racists due to banging on about immigration etc.0 -
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
0 -
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
0 -
There's more chance of Scotland becoming independent in a second referendum than there is a UKIP government happening.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.0 -
I think you're reading it the wrong way round. They did sign a formal coalition deal with the Tories, and of course that included giving them some say on English education (whether they chose to use that say wisely is another matter). Under EV4EL, they would not have had any say in the matter of English education if, hypothetically, they'd been able to form a coalition with Labour.SouthamObserver said:I agree that 4 is the big one. Would the LDs have signed a formal coalition deal with the Tories in the knowledge that this would have given the Tories an overall majority for England? From an LD perspective, it would have given complete carte blanche to Gove, for example.
0 -
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.0 -
I linked to the Ipsos-Mori website in the thread header.radsatser said:I suppose if you stick your head down the pot looking for a turd, you will eventually find one! Perhaps if you published the rest of the answers in that section of the poll, it might offer a more balanced picture of the mindset of those taking part. Granted, it wouldn't support the narrative you suggest, but you never know it might actually offer clues to why UKIP is continuing to rise in the polls.
As UKIP threads usually end up revolving around trying to understand peoples voting preference, I would have thought some of the other answers would have been rather more informative.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3450/Labour-are-the-most-popular-party-but-their-leader-lags-behind.aspx#gallery[m]/0/
My thread headers (like Mike's) we don't repeat all the polling, conducted, as we're not into churnalism, we pick, what we think is most relevant, it is a subjective thing. What I find interesting and relevant, may not cater all to tastes.
Plus, I've managed to get two threads out of this Ipsos-Mori polling, As this polling is quite substanstial and informative, I'm hoping to get another 3 threads out of it, Two of which I anticipate will be favourable to UKIP0 -
But, a good chance that UKIP is in the running in the seats that I mentioned. Nobody would ever vote for anyone other than the Conservatives of Labour, if the only thing that mattered was to keep the other lot out.Philip_Thompson said:
There's more chance of Scotland becoming independent in a second referendum than there is a UKIP government happening.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
0 -
Problem is that just won't happen at least not in quantities large enough so they can form a government - see previous thread where UKIP are the most disliked party by a mile. UKIP have a natural ceiling because traditional Unionist Tories like myself possibly up to 25% of the electorate will never vote for them and Lab/ Libs/Greens form a 45% block on the left.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.0 -
Do we know whether this question has been polled in the past? If so, it would be very interesting to see if the perception of being 'extreme' has shifted from the Conservatives to UKIP.0
-
That is the equivalent of "we will still use the pound "Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
No thanks.0 -
Really?Bob__Sykes said:repost fpt:
Socrates said:
UKIP are going to go into the next election being able to say they're the only party which will offer an English parliament.
"People of England. Nigel Farage is the only party leader offering to spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year, perhaps more, in setting up another layer of government and bureaucracy, and this one's a biggie - not just an assembly for 5m Scots, but another layer of government for the whole of England. Imagine having the luxury of an MP to send to the UK Parliament in London and another to the English Parliament in London. Think about all those leaflets through the door! You're crying out for more politicians - well, Nigel's the man to give them to you. Do you look longingly at those sexy new assemblies in Cardiff Bay and Edinburgh, and think "why can't England spend £400m on its own brand new massively over-budget parliament building"? - well now's your chance of having one of your own!"
Is that what UKIP are going to be treating us to in the campaign?
Hope so!
Oh dear not this load of mindless drivel again. Why do they bother with such arguments when they are predicated on a false concept that somehow devolution involves creating new powers. It doesn't it redistributes power and that means reducing one groups powers and moving it elsewhere. Basically large parts of the Westminster machine would be replaced and upgraded with something better! Something that is long overdue!
UKIP want to abolish the House Of Lords and replace it with an English Parliament as part of a federalisation of the UK. The English Parliament will no doubt have no more than 531 representatives (the number of English Constituencies) and possibly less than that. There are currently 828 peers who have the right to sit in the House Of Lords so worst case scenario is that by introducing an English Parliament you reduce the number of politicians in the Westminster Freakshow by almost three hundred.
Further by devolving all that legislation to an English Parliament there would be no need for anywhere near as many MP's in the now Federal House of Commons and so further cuts in personnel could be made there. So it would always be the case of less overall running costs less politicians and more democracy. And of course there is no need to send them to London. The site of a new English Parliament could be anywhere in the country but on the other hand as the HoL chamber would be redundant they could sit there.
Such attacks as above are risible.0 -
Richard, I'm not sure it is a myth, The header includes a link to the Tories appealing to tactical anti-UKIP voters, and it working.Richard_Tyndall said:The anti-UKIP vote at Newark is a myth. That is not to say it will not happen elsewhere but using Newark as a (false) example is just lazy.
Admittedly with a small sample size, of three polls, the polling did show a swing to the Tories from non UKIP parties during the campaign.
Plus Mike did say, he was told by an impeccable source on the ground that it did happen.0 -
Agreed, the issues will remain, dormant, until (3) or (4) happens. But when it happens, it could really screw over the whole union. It is far preferable to just have an English parliament. I accept there's a little bit more expense, but they would probably be rounding errors in the overall context of public expenditure. That seems to be a price to pay to have a fair and balanced system that doesn't incite resentment on one side or the other.Richard_Nabavi said:
I agree, it's a mess. In practice, though, it might not be quite as much of a mess as it looks, because the anomaly only applies in certain circumstances. In very broad-brush terms:Socrates said:Possibly, but this will happen all over the place. If Labour don't have a majority in England, how would it be acceptable for them to have an education minister deciding non-statutory English education policy?
1) Con Maj - No anomaly, the same party has a majority in both the UK and England.
2) Reasonable size Lab Maj - Ditto
3) Small Lab Maj - Anomaly might apply, although if Labour have any sized majority, then they've probably at least got most seats in England as well.
4) Hung parliament - this is the interesting one. I think the real significance of EV4EL would apply here, in that it would make a coalition involving the largest English party more attractive than a coalition involving the largest UK party.0 -
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?0 -
Good afternoon, everyone.
If you take extreme away from fitness to govern the blues are on 28, the reds 27.0 -
As I said downthread, I received the same information. It definitely happened, and to quite large extent (several percentage points). I hadn't expected this to be the case (in fact, before I received this information, I'd argued with antifrank on the subject, when he was suggesting, from the polling, that it did).TheScreamingEagles said:
Richard, I'm not sure it is a myth, The header includes a link to the Tories appealing to tactical anti-UKIP voters, and it working.Richard_Tyndall said:The anti-UKIP vote at Newark is a myth. That is not to say it will not happen elsewhere but using Newark as a (false) example is just lazy.
Admittedly with a small sample size, of three polls, the polling did show a swing to the Tories from non UKIP parties during the campaign.
Plus Mike did say, he was told by an impeccable source on the ground that it did happen.0 -
This is totally anecdotal but my sister voted UKIP in the Euros but will return Conservative for the GE. In much the same manner that Alex Salmond was roasted, Farage and his hoard will come under intense scrutiny. We may see an early bounce but I predict they will then slide back to the old mature rump. I doubt they will beat the LibDems, but that's about as much as they can expect to achieve.
0 -
One thing that does stick out is different from other parties, UKIP on 80% and the others on 39-46%.radsatser said:I suppose if you stick your head down the pot looking for a turd, you will eventually find one! Perhaps if you published the rest of the answers in that section of the poll, it might offer a more balanced picture of the mindset of those taking part. Granted, it wouldn't support the narrative you suggest, but you never know it might actually offer clues to why UKIP is continuing to rise in the polls.
As UKIP threads usually end up revolving around trying to understand peoples voting preference, I would have thought some of the other answers would have been rather more informative.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3450/Labour-are-the-most-popular-party-but-their-leader-lags-behind.aspx#gallery[m]/0/
And if a lot of people think politicans are thieving corrupt useless scum...
0 -
Except it isn't.HurstLlama said:Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining […] support0 -
You Tories really do have a collective suicide pact going don't you?Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
0 -
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.0 -
Except that, again, they aren't. You can keep up the myth if you like but I'm afraid the polling doesn't support your fantasy.Richard_Tyndall said:
why UKIP are continuing to gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
0 -
Really? On what basis do you make that claim? Membership numbers seem to be growing rather well, possibly about to win a by-election, increasing number of votes at local elections, not really the signs of a party in decline.audreyanne said:
Except it isn't.HurstLlama said:Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining […] support0 -
So, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, and a majority of Conservative MPs (who opposed gay marriage) are "fruitcake"?Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
Opposing mass immigration is "racist"?
Being in favour of a referendum on EU membership means being opposed to one?
I see.
0 -
Membership is growing faster than any of the other main parties (the last weeks burst of SNP membership increase accepted) and overall UKIP support is steadily rising amongst the electorate whilst the other parties stagnate.audreyanne said:
Except that, again, they aren't. You can keep up the myth if you like but I'm afraid the polling doesn't support your fantasy.Richard_Tyndall said:
why UKIP are continuing to gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
0 -
Keep believing that Audrey. You are in for a very nasty shock.audreyanne said:
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.0 -
Cheers for the link Miss Vance - not what I expected, the punter sounds like a really nice guy.CarlottaVance said:Interview with guy who bet £900,000 on "no"
https://audioboo.fm/boos/2500068-jeremy-speaks-to-gambler-who-placed-900-000-bet-on-no-vote0 -
Listened to Rachel Reeves being interviewed by Brillo. Either hilarious of terrifying, depending on if you expect Labour to form the next government or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzPPOHfIp340 -
Why should I give up? UKIP are moving onward and upward.audreyanne said:
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.
0 -
77% of the public want to reduce immigration. 54% want to reduce immigration "a lot". 30% name it as the most important issue for the government to focus on.Sean_F said:
So, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, and a majority of Conservative MPs (who opposed gay marriage) are "fruitcake"?Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
Opposing mass immigration is "racist"?
Being in favour of a referendum on EU membership means being opposed to one?
I see.
A lot of racists in the country, apparently.0 -
I am not sure I understand the point you are making. Under the present Coalition agreement Tory ministers with responsibility for English issues can be reined in by the LDs. If we had EV4EL now, that would not be possible. So, it seems to me, there is much less incentive for a party to sign a coalition agreement in the future if by doing so it gives the partner party untrammelled control of England.Richard_Nabavi said:
I think you're reading it the wrong way round. They did sign a formal coalition deal with the Tories, and of course that included giving them some say on English education (whether they chose to use that say wisely is another matter). Under EV4EL, they would not have had any say in the matter of English education if, hypothetically, they'd been able to form a coalition with Labour.SouthamObserver said:I agree that 4 is the big one. Would the LDs have signed a formal coalition deal with the Tories in the knowledge that this would have given the Tories an overall majority for England? From an LD perspective, it would have given complete carte blanche to Gove, for example.
Furthermore, EV4EL under our present electoral system would often make it impossible for parties that received 50% or more of the vote in England to even discuss a coalition.0 -
Ah yes and alongside the abusive arrogance (see Phillip Thompson) comes the narcissistic vanity that thinks that the Tories are still an attractive offer to Kippers.audreyanne said:
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.
Did you not read Phillip Thompson? We're all swivel-eyed nutters. You don't want us back (Cameron has made that perfectly clear in his way) even if we wanted to and speaking for myself I'd rather the oceans freeze over than rejoin the Tories.
0 -
I'm sure Cameron won't be scared of debating Farage then.audreyanne said:This is totally anecdotal but my sister voted UKIP in the Euros but will return Conservative for the GE. In much the same manner that Alex Salmond was roasted, Farage and his hoard will come under intense scrutiny. We may see an early bounce but I predict they will then slide back to the old mature rump. I doubt they will beat the LibDems, but that's about as much as they can expect to achieve.
0 -
Yep you tried that at the Euros with the 'close scrutiny' and look how much good it did for you.audreyanne said:This is totally anecdotal but my sister voted UKIP in the Euros but will return Conservative for the GE. In much the same manner that Alex Salmond was roasted, Farage and his hoard will come under intense scrutiny. We may see an early bounce but I predict they will then slide back to the old mature rump. I doubt they will beat the LibDems, but that's about as much as they can expect to achieve.
Will UKIP win the GE? - of course not. Most of us have never claimed they would.
Will they win some seats? -Yes almost certainly. Not many but enough to show they mean business and are not just going to fade away as you might hope.
Will Cameron win if he and his party continue to alienate UKIP supporters - No not a chance.
Get used to it.0 -
You sound just like Stuart Dickson. Maybe Audrey is out of touch with the UKIP ground game.Richard_Tyndall said:
Keep believing that Audrey. You are in for a very nasty shock.audreyanne said:
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.0 -
Darling :
""Apparently, the First Minister of Scotland said today while he'd lost the referendum, never mind, he might be able to seize power some other way. I just say to Mr Alex Salmond: you lost the argument, you lost the referendum, you've lost office, and now you've lost the plot. The people of Scotland are sovereign and the people of Scotland have said 'no thanks' to separation and you must accept that result.""
0 -
Yes of course they are fruitcakes, why wouldn't they be? All parties have fruitcakes, its just UKIP have quite a few. I'd prefer the phrases backwards or neanderthals to describe such selfish and extreme behaviour though.Sean_F said:
So, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, and a majority of Conservative MPs (who opposed gay marriage) are "fruitcake"?Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
Opposing mass immigration is "racist"?
Being in favour of a referendum on EU membership means being opposed to one?
I see.
Mass immigration being opposed due to racism is racist.
Opposing the only main party pledged to an EU referendum due to wanting an EU referendum is loony.0 -
SO's comment below illustrates beautifully why a more considerred approach than "stop the non-English MPs from voting" is required. Careful consideration is needed to avoid legislative gridlock.0
-
Watch out for 'Clueless wonders' and 'Tipping point'.Anorak said:
You sound just like Stuart Dickson. Maybe Audrey is out of touch with the UKIP ground game.Richard_Tyndall said:
Keep believing that Audrey. You are in for a very nasty shock.audreyanne said:
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.0 -
You have nothing to add to this discussion other than childish name-calling.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes of course they are fruitcakes, why wouldn't they be? All parties have fruitcakes, its just UKIP have quite a few. I'd prefer the phrases backwards or neanderthals to describe such selfish and extreme behaviour though.Sean_F said:
So, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, and a majority of Conservative MPs (who opposed gay marriage) are "fruitcake"?Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
Opposing mass immigration is "racist"?
Being in favour of a referendum on EU membership means being opposed to one?
I see.
Mass immigration being opposed due to racism is racist.
Opposing the only main party pledged to an EU referendum due to wanting an EU referendum is loony.
0 -
Yep you have repeated this time and again Richard and to be frank I don't believe it. Having been on the ground throughout the whole election and also knowing the constituency as well as looking at the numbers it is clear this idea of an anti-UKIP vote in Newark really is a myth. They did as well if not better than they were ever going to do there and the only people who seemed to have been surprised by the result are those who didn't have the first idea about the constituency in the first place.Richard_Nabavi said:
As I said downthread, I received the same information. It definitely happened, and to quite large extent (several percentage points). I hadn't expected this to be the case (in fact, before I received this information, I'd argued with antifrank on the subject, when he was suggesting, from the polling, that it did).TheScreamingEagles said:
Richard, I'm not sure it is a myth, The header includes a link to the Tories appealing to tactical anti-UKIP voters, and it working.Richard_Tyndall said:The anti-UKIP vote at Newark is a myth. That is not to say it will not happen elsewhere but using Newark as a (false) example is just lazy.
Admittedly with a small sample size, of three polls, the polling did show a swing to the Tories from non UKIP parties during the campaign.
Plus Mike did say, he was told by an impeccable source on the ground that it did happen.0 -
I never said you're all swivel-eyed nutters. I never used the phrase and I never said "all". Furthermore how could I want anyone back when I'm not a party?manofkent2014 said:Ah yes and alongside the abusive arrogance (see Phillip Thompson) comes the narcissistic vanity that thinks that the Tories are still an attractive offer to Kippers.
Did you not read Phillip Thompson? We're all swivel-eyed nutters. You don't want us back (Cameron has made that perfectly clear in his way) even if we wanted to and speaking for myself I'd rather the oceans freeze over than rejoin the Tories.
Yes there are a lot of racists in this country.Socrates said:77% of the public want to reduce immigration. 54% want to reduce immigration "a lot". 30% name it as the most important issue for the government to focus on.
A lot of racists in the country, apparently.
0 -
Ouch - the turnips fight back..Anorak said:
You sound just like Stuart Dickson. Maybe Audrey is out of touch with the UKIP ground game.Richard_Tyndall said:
Keep believing that Audrey. You are in for a very nasty shock.audreyanne said:
Or just give up and come back Sean, as most of the rest will.Sean_F said:
The answer is to vote UKIP to get UKIP.TGOHF said:
"Mainstream" means wanting an EU referendumSean_F said:
"Extreme" means some minor activist blaming bad weather on gay marriage.Richard_Tyndall said:
A post whose arrogance perfectly summarises why UKIP are continuing to grow and gain support as a party.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
Please do keep it up. These attitudes are worth their weight in gold to UKIP.
"Mainstream" means turning a blind eye to child rape.
"Extreme" = rubbing your hands with glee at the thought of 5 years of Ed Miliband PM on the off chance it increases the chance of winning a referendum.
Just as the Nats had no answer to the currency question, Ukip have no answer to the "why should I vote Kipper to get Ed ? " question.
Am here waiting - convince me.
You're on a losing wicket and I suspect deep down you know it.0 -
Given the proliferation of new and (largely) pointless laws over the past 20 years, I'm not sure this is entirely a bad thing. Cf. Belgium, USA.not_on_fire said:SO's comment below illustrates beautifully why a more considerred approach than "stop the non-English MPs from voting" is required. Careful consideration is needed to avoid legislative gridlock.
0 -
Why do people want to reduce immigration?Socrates said:
77% of the public want to reduce immigration. 54% want to reduce immigration "a lot". 30% name it as the most important issue for the government to focus on.Sean_F said:
So, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, David Davis, Esther McVey, Nicky Morgan, and a majority of Conservative MPs (who opposed gay marriage) are "fruitcake"?Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
Opposing mass immigration is "racist"?
Being in favour of a referendum on EU membership means being opposed to one?
I see.
A lot of racists in the country, apparently.0 -
Your basic logic?Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
0 -
Childish namecalling is nothing compared to wanting to tyrannically stop people from getting married due to something like race or sexual orientation would you not agree?Sean_F said:You have nothing to add to this discussion other than childish name-calling.
0 -
I thought she was supposed to be one of Labour's rising stars! She sounded like she was bluffing even on the end bit when her position seemed defensible!Anorak said:Listened to Rachel Reeves being interviewed by Brillo. Either hilarious of terrifying, depending on if you expect Labour to form the next government or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzPPOHfIp340 -
I think the Tory party better hire Damian McBride, Sion Simon, Derek Draper, Charlie Whelan and Alistair Campbell to train their trolls before the election because the current quality of them is childishly laughable.0
-
@Anorak
'Listened to Rachel Reeves being interviewed by Brillo. Either hilarious of terrifying, depending on if you expect Labour to form the next government or not.'
Really muted applause for her speech just now,followed by SKY on the streets of Manchester trying to find anyone that thought Ed Balls was credible,after the fourth person they gave up.0 -
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Childish namecalling is nothing compared to wanting to tyrannically stop people from getting married due to something like race or sexual orientation would you not agree?Sean_F said:You have nothing to add to this discussion other than childish name-calling.
0 -
So names are worse than abusing the law to prevent people from getting married to someone they choose. Right, got you.Sean_F said:
No.Philip_Thompson said:
Childish namecalling is nothing compared to wanting to tyrannically stop people from getting married due to something like race or sexual orientation would you not agree?Sean_F said:You have nothing to add to this discussion other than childish name-calling.
Disagree on priorities.
0 -
Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.Philip_Thompson said:
That may be true and if I was a partisan hack it might be self-defeating. However I'm just an Englishman mouthing my own personal opinion online so that's just honest. I'm not egotistical enough to think that anybody is going to change their vote based on what I write online.HurstLlama said:
Mr. Thompson, when you make that statement an awful lot of people don't hear the word "mostly". So people who are broadly sympathetic to, at least, some of what UKIP are saying hear themselves called, "fruitcakes, loons or closet racists". To use such language is a very very self-defeating tactic. As Cameron has found.Philip_Thompson said:I don't believe people think that UKIP are mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists because Cameron said it. Cameron said it because UKIP ARE mostly a bunch of fruitcakes, loons or closet racists.
UKIP is gaining members and support largely, I think, from those that Labour and the Conservatives have thought "locked-in" and so ignored. UKIP is changing as a result and for the same reason it is not going to go away.
Fruticake: Opposing gay marriage is fruitcake. Wanting the law to forbid legal relationships being treated the same is fruitcake. Anyone who so disregards civil liberties they care more about their own homophobia than they do the rights of my gay and lesbian friends is a fruitcake.
Loons: Come on, banging on about Europe but opposing actually having a referendum. Talk about loony. Then again maybe they're too frit and its easier to bang on about something than have a vote you may lose.
Closet racists: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Giving the word closet is too polite for many LOL.
What's wrong here?
The gay marriage stuff, I will if you will excuse me just side-step. It is not an area I will enter into.
On Europe, "Banging on" is often a big clue to a persons attitude to the EU. A Better Off Out position is perfectly respectable and can be cogently argued. Where the idea comes from the UKIP doesn't want a referendum on the issue comes from I don't know.
On immigration you seem to be arguing the same way as many others have in the past. That is to say to talk about mass immigration and its effects is equivalent to racism. That is I think no longer held to be the case even amongst the chattering classes. It never was amongst the people most affected.0 -
You're citing the USA as an example in favour of gridlock?!Anorak said:
Given the proliferation of new and (largely) pointless laws over the past 20 years, I'm not sure this is entirely a bad thing. Cf. Belgium, USA.not_on_fire said:SO's comment below illustrates beautifully why a more considerred approach than "stop the non-English MPs from voting" is required. Careful consideration is needed to avoid legislative gridlock.
0 -
SO's comment below illustrates beautifully why a more considerred approach than "stop the non-English MPs from voting" is required. Careful consideration is needed to avoid legislative gridlock.
Extra powers for Scotland: Easy and deliverable.
Corresponding extra powers for England: Fiendishly complex and not deliverable.
0 -
@not_on_fire
'SO's comment below illustrates beautifully why a more considerred approach than "stop the non-English MPs from voting" is required. Careful consideration is needed to avoid legislative gridlock.'
Just more excuses to try and kick the issue into the long grass and keep Labour's unfair advantage0 -
Depends on the campaign... If Farage chooses to stigmatise and stereotype again, saying its understandable for people to be prejudicial then this voter would vote for the strongest non-UK candidate regardless of their party...manofkent2014 said:... I doubt there is a more ridiculous and frankly delusional idea doing the rounds at the moment than the idea that there will be any serious tactical voting against UKIP.
If, on the other hand, the prospectus is solely one of regaining sovereignty without any prejudicial undertone then who knows....0 -
No, it's calling for a considered approach before we rush into far-reaching constitutional changes to address a "problem" that has only reared its head once in 15 years. We could easily end up with far more pertinent problems if we rush into changes.john_zims said:@not_on_fire
'SO's comment below illustrates beautifully why a more considerred approach than "stop the non-English MPs from voting" is required. Careful consideration is needed to avoid legislative gridlock.'
Just more excuses to try and kick the issue into the long grass and keep Labour's unfair advantage0
