politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling says UKIP are the most extreme and the least fi
Comments
-
Yes, because the Tory proposals are to combine the UK-wide and English parliaments in one.taffys 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.
Extra powers for Scotland: Easy and deliverable.
Corresponding extra powers for England: Fiendishly complex and not deliverable.0 -
labour's Northern English MPs seriously unhappy on EV4EL
Danczuk joining the chorus of disapproval, according to twitter.0 -
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.0 -
Except you miss the very obvious point that we do not expect 'to win' in the same way that Stuart did. What we expect to do is to continue to grow as a movement and make some gains at the next General Election. Something which (unlike the Independence referendum) both the polls and general opinion seem to think are very likely.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.
I suspect that it is the Tories who are out of touch with reality.0 -
HurstLlama said:
I do find it rather ironic that Tories complain of UKIP banging on about the EU and Immigration when the government has done little else. I especially recall Theresa May's little van wheeze and all that hysteria about Dave's veto that never was and the referendum that never will be.Philip_Thompson said:HurstLlama said:
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:
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.
They even in a way kept it running with this English question in some ways which seems to have taken us from the now discredited In Europe but not run by Europe to the sadly disappointing 'In England but not run by England'0 -
I imagine that in Newark, there was tactical voting both for, and against, UKIP. Overall, the vote share for the two right of centre parties rose by almost 20%, compared to 2010.Rexel56 said:
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 -
In what is likely to be one of the tightest general elections ever, the thread header contends that Labour and conservative voters will vote for each other to keep a third party out, therefore labour voters directly getting conservatives elected and vice versa.Richard_Nabavi said: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.
Absolutely ludicrous
0 -
Believe what you like. Others will be interested in the information, as I was.Richard_Tyndall said: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.
I should make clear that my source was specifically referring to Labour voters in those areas of the constituency where Labour are strongest. I don't have any direct information on whether LibDems were voting tactically for the Conservatives, although the numbers suggest that this also did occur.0 -
To get:bigjohnowls said:
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:
SNIPHurstLlama 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.
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.
- Lower house prices
- Easier access to the NHS
- More school places
- More community cohesion
- Less religious extremism, home-grown terrorism, honour killings, FGM etc0 -
Overall, the UKIP share rose by 23%, so *somebody* must have switched to them,Richard_Nabavi said:
Believe what you like. Others will be interested in the information, as I was.Richard_Tyndall said: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.
I should make clear that my source was specifically referring to Labour voters in those areas of the constituency where Labour are strongest. I don't have any direct information on whether LibDems were voting tactically for the Conservatives, although the numbers suggest that this also did occur.
0 -
It shows that a gridlocked system does not, perforce, lead to a country failing as a world power or as an economy. That said, I should have left it at Belgium!Stereotomy said:
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 -
Because there are clear signs that the infrastructure of this country is incapable of absorbing immigration/ migration turnover at such high levels anymore and as a result whilst the cost of the infrastructure keeps rising rapidly its quality is in steady decline (classic signs of dis-economies of scale) and basically we just cannot afford to keep doing this.bigjohnowls said:
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 -
Given that in most of the areas 'where Labour was strong' there was considerable anti-Labour voting for historical local reasons I would suggest your sources are somewhat suspect.Richard_Nabavi said:
Believe what you like. Others will be interested in the information, as I was.Richard_Tyndall said: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.
I should make clear that my source was specifically referring to Labour voters in those areas of the constituency where Labour are strongest. I don't have any direct information on whether LibDems were voting tactically for the Conservatives, although the numbers suggest that this also did occur.
0 -
On the contrary, it would be possible, that is exactly the point, because it could be agreed as part of the coalition agreement.SouthamObserver said: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.
0 -
I know that. It's very clear you want to lose in every measurable way.Richard_Tyndall said:
Except you miss the very obvious point that we do not expect 'to win' in the same way that Stuart did.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 -
What is certainly true in my neck of the woods In Kent is that UKIP are not making much traction in well-healed traditional Tory constituencies like Sevenoaks and Tonbridge & Malling but certainly are in more marginal seats such as of course Thanet South and others. OGH suggests they generally take 2 votes from Cons compared to one vote from Labour. It will be interesting to see if that proportion holds up in the next GE. My suspicion is that seepage back to Cons may be greater than back to Lab so the overall effect might be neutral. I suspect they will take a few seats depending a lot on the quality of the local candidate.0
-
When I met Mike I told him I had heard from a senior kipper that Farage was definitely standing in either North or South Thanet, and you could back them at 11/8 combinedTheScreamingEagles 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.
He laughed and said thanks but his source told him Farage was standing in Folkestone, and that was good enough for him0 -
Actually, as I have said on here a number of times I support the principle of EV4EL. What I have not yet seen from the Tories is any explanation of how it would work in practice. If it was so simple, it would not be necessary to appoint William Hague to lead a cabinet committee to spend four months looking into how it might be done.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 advantage
0 -
Got it. How do you think that would go down among Tory backbenchers?Richard_Nabavi said:
On the contrary, it would be possible, that is exactly the point, because it could be agreed as part of the coalition agreement.SouthamObserver said: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.
0 -
On every measurable scale you are wrongaudreyanne 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 -
LOL. As I said you just keep believing that.Anorak said:
I know that. It's very clear you want to lose in every measurable way.Richard_Tyndall said:
Except you miss the very obvious point that we do not expect 'to win' in the same way that Stuart did.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 -
My source was most definitely pukka, was referring specifically to Labour voters, and had direct access to the data (i.e. this was not anecdotal). If you don't want to believe direct, well-sourced information, that is entirely up to you.Richard_Tyndall said:Given that in most of the areas 'where Labour was strong' there was considerable anti-Labour voting for historical local reasons I would suggest your sources are somewhat suspect.
0 -
I will believe my own information from the doorstep if that is okay with you. I do wonder how willing a Labour canvasser was to listen to traditional Labour voters that the actions of their own local party had driven so many people away.Richard_Nabavi said:
My source was most definitely pukka, was referring specifically to Labour voters, and had direct access to the data (i.e. this was not anecdotal). If you don't want to believe direct, well-sourced information, that is entirely up to you.Richard_Tyndall said:Given that in most of the areas 'where Labour was strong' there was considerable anti-Labour voting for historical local reasons I would suggest your sources are somewhat suspect.
0 -
@not_on_
'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.'
And only minor issues, like Blair changing the structure of the NHS in England due to Scottish MP's votes.
' In 2003, Tony Blair only passed laws creating foundation hospitals in the NHS in England with the support of Labour MPs from Scottish seats.'0 -
If the alternative were a Labour Chancellor...SouthamObserver said:Got it. How do you think that would go down among Tory backbenchers?
It would depend, as now, on which particular issues were the highest priority for the putative coalition partners. It's hard to speculate on how such factors might play out in some future post-election negotiations.
0 -
OT. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Labour might need to be looking for another PPC for Woking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-candidate-vicki-kirby-suspended-for-antiisrael-tweets-9746713.html0 -
Two reasons: (1) regulate the size of the population, up or down, particularly the number available for employment and taking into account the availability of housing, schooling etc.; and (2) a desire to protect indigenous culture from corruption by certain foreign cultures. People are motivated by one, both or neither of these reasons...bigjohnowls said:
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 -
Still, only one. Apparently it's OK to remain a Labour candidate after writing “The Nazis gassed their victims, this government are pushing disabled to kill themselves. It HAS to stop.”Richard_Tyndall said:OT. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Labour might need to be looking for another PPC for Woking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-candidate-vicki-kirby-suspended-for-antiisrael-tweets-9746713.html0 -
Tweeting from Jonestown, Guyana.Richard_Tyndall said:OT. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but Labour might need to be looking for another PPC for Woking.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-candidate-vicki-kirby-suspended-for-antiisrael-tweets-9746713.html
0 -
I heard on here that hundreds of young conservatives, plus all conservative MPs galvanised the Tory vote... So it wasn't Tories voting ukipSean_F said:
Overall, the UKIP share rose by 23%, so *somebody* must have switched to them,Richard_Nabavi said:
Believe what you like. Others will be interested in the information, as I was.Richard_Tyndall said: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.
I should make clear that my source was specifically referring to Labour voters in those areas of the constituency where Labour are strongest. I don't have any direct information on whether LibDems were voting tactically for the Conservatives, although the numbers suggest that this also did occur.
Then lab and lib combined went down by the same amount ukip went up...
But apparently they were voting Tory as well
Who voted ukip? Our vote went up 22%0 -
Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)0 -
I don't think we'll have to worry too much about Lib Dem Scottish MPs voting on English legislation after the next election.0
-
Con's -6 but the only change is UKIP +3? Where has the other 3% gone? The Twilight Zone?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
0 -
Unsurprising finding. It won't put Kippers / Tory defectors off though. The reason they like UKIP in the first place is because of its extremism.0
-
UKIP got votes from all the other parties, plus some previous non-voters. The Conservatives lost votes to UKIP, but also gained some tactical voters from Labour (and I imagine the LibDems).isam said:
I heard on here that hundreds of young conservatives, plus all conservative MPs galvanised the Tory vote... So it wasn't Tories voting ukip
Then lab and lib combined went down by the same amount ukip went up...
But apparently they were voting Tory as well
Who voted ukip? Our vote went up 22%0 -
Others up 2%, the missing 1% is rounding.GIN1138 said:
Con's -6 but the only change is UKIP +3? Where has the other 3% gone? The Twilight Zone?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)0 -
Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.0 -
60% combined for Conservatives and Labour must be almost a record low.TheScreamingEagles said:
Others up 2%, the missing 1% is rounding.GIN1138 said:
Con's -6 but the only change is UKIP +3? Where has the other 3% gone? The Twilight Zone?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
0 -
SNP +3 ?GIN1138 said:
Con's -6 but the only change is UKIP +3? Where has the other 3% gone? The Twilight Zone?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
0 -
And the polling is right.
Next!0 -
Ashcroft
"When it came to the promise of a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, 45% of Conservative voters and 71% of UKIP voters were worried that the Tories would somehow fail to keep their promise. "
45% of Tories?????? @RichardNabavi, you need to start offering odds to, or re educating, your own party0 -
Todays Polls
Populus LAB 347 CON 256 LD 21 Other 26 Ed is Crap is PM
LA LAB 358 CON 228 LD 35 Other29 Ed is Crap is PM
As someone said earlier EV4EL is a disasterfor LAB0 -
Would the fieldwork timing be an influence? presumably done in the run up to Indyref, when everybody was trying to love Scotland?0
-
Certainly Ed Balls has loyally set a low bar for his leader to exceed.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
0 -
As someone said earlier EV4EL is a disasterfor LAB
Chances are the fieldwork was even before Indyref?0 -
Last GE only 42% of the population voted for them. If that starts heading towards 33% then I think the games up for the old guardSean_F said:
60% combined for Conservatives and Labour must be almost a record low.TheScreamingEagles said:
Others up 2%, the missing 1% is rounding.GIN1138 said:
Con's -6 but the only change is UKIP +3? Where has the other 3% gone? The Twilight Zone?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)0 -
Both the Populus and Lord Ashcroft fieldwork was Friday to Sunday, so after the indyref result was known.taffys said:Would the fieldwork timing be an influence? presumably done in the run up to Indyref, when everybody was trying to love Scotland?
0 -
Ah, the same price freeze that spooked suppliers, who then didn't pass on the wholesale reductions to customers. That was a winner.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.0 -
Wrong as usualtaffys said:As someone said earlier EV4EL is a disasterfor LAB
Chances are the fieldwork was even before Indyref?0 -
If your leader is as confident of a 100 seat maj over the Tories as you appear to be surely he can magnanimously consider EV4EL in the spirit of reconciliation with the opposition parties and some of his own backbenchers.bigjohnowls said:Todays Polls
Populus LAB 347 CON 256 LD 21 Other 26 Ed is Crap is PM
LA LAB 358 CON 228 LD 35 Other29 Ed is Crap is PM
As someone said earlier EV4EL is a disasterfor LAB0 -
One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends0 -
Wrong as usual
Looks like your plans for devolution are a big winner. I think you should definitely run with them.0 -
Balls' balls.
He is awful. However as Gordo has lurked onto the stage once again perhaps even Balls looks good.
I noted over the weekend that someone (I forget who) said that Cameron had sanctioned Brown's Scottish promises. Could anyone point me to evidence for that?
0 -
Suppliers had previously been brilliant at passing these on of course.TheWatcher said:
Ah, the same price freeze that spooked suppliers, who then didn't pass on the wholesale reductions to customers. That was a winner.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.
Why believe the vested interests when all they have done is screw customers for years0 -
We need to bring in PR with a 10% threshold needed to enter parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)0 -
That's certainly the trend.When I throw the balls up in the air I see both Tories and Labour splitting and there could be an 8 party system,more at local and regional level.PR would end up that way.It needs to start at local level so that people understand multi-party systems work.Currently the mood is to cling to nanny.isam said:
Last GE only 42% of the population voted for them. If that starts heading towards 33% then I think the games up for the old guardSean_F said:
60% combined for Conservatives and Labour must be almost a record low.TheScreamingEagles said:
Others up 2%, the missing 1% is rounding.GIN1138 said:
Con's -6 but the only change is UKIP +3? Where has the other 3% gone? The Twilight Zone?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
0 -
If he gets in and somehow manages to implement the price freeze it will be the end of him.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.
I have a feeling we are set for the weakest PM in history
0 -
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.0 -
Whilst you deal with the 29% of UKIP who have clearly failed to understand that Cameron is a lying, mendacious b********d...isam said:Ashcroft
"When it came to the promise of a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, 45% of Conservative voters and 71% of UKIP voters were worried that the Tories would somehow fail to keep their promise. "
45% of Tories?????? @RichardNabavi, you need to start offering odds to, or re educating, your own party0 -
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends0 -
Wonder what curtains the Milibands favour?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
They can get the catalogue out now I think.
The man who accidentally became the Labour leader even though he didn't want the job, is about to accidentally become the PM even though barely anyone in the country actually wants him to!0 -
Ed 'Low Carbon' Miliband has been helping energy bills rise for many years.bigjohnowls said:
Suppliers had previously been brilliant at passing these on of course.TheWatcher said:
Ah, the same price freeze that spooked suppliers, who then didn't pass on the wholesale reductions to customers. That was a winner.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.
Why believe the vested interests when all they have done is screw customers for years0 -
It's extraordinary - PPE (ok we expect that) but then an MSc in economics at the LSE. I mean she is not an idiot or economically illiterate and I'm sure could have run rings round Andrew Neill economically.Socrates said:
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=UzPPOHfIp34
Which makes her contortions so disappointing (if I were a Lab supporter) and alienating (for the rest of humanity) that she should not want to tell it like it is and has been "got to" by Lab.
Goodness only knows what she goes to sleep thinking each day she has accomplished for the common good.0 -
You're reading far too much into the most volatile of all pollsters.Bob__Sykes said:
Wonder what curtains the Milibands favour?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
They can get the catalogue out now I think.
The man who accidentally became the Labour leader even though he didn't want the job, is about to accidentally become the PM even though barely anyone in the country actually wants him to!
0 -
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO0 -
The LD would never agree to it, they will drop below any threshold.Socrates said:
We need to bring in PR with a 10% threshold needed to enter parliament.TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)0 -
We may nominally be a Christian country but what we are not is either a Catholic nor a fundamentalist Christian country.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
As such your comment is pointless since the vast majority of both Christians and agnostics/atheists have accepted that the 'christian' thing to do is legalise same sex marriage and welcome gays as full, equal members of our society.
I am afraid your societal norms are... well, not normal any more.0 -
Oh dear you have just lost all credibility.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
0 -
I am not so sure yet. I would wait a month or two to allow the referendum brouhaha to die down and the party conference nonsense to get out the way and see which way the polls start going then.Bob__Sykes said:
Wonder what curtains the Milibands favour?TheScreamingEagles said:Lord Ashcroft poll
CON 27% (-6) LAB 33% (nc) LDEM 9% (nc) UKIP 17% (+3), GRN 6% (nc)
They can get the catalogue out now I think.
The man who accidentally became the Labour leader even though he didn't want the job, is about to accidentally become the PM even though barely anyone in the country actually wants him to!0 -
Because the first can easily result in children that are severely deformed and a household pet is not of the level of intelligence to consent to such an arrangement.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.0 -
I'm sure @Plato would disagree.Socrates said:
Because the first can easily result in children that are severely deformed and a household pet is not of the level of intelligence to consent to such an arrangement.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
(Edit: not for one moment suggesting that @Plato might want to wed any of her beloved cats)0 -
I didn't even get the impression she was following his questions and then trying to steer it away. She genuinely didn't seem to properly understand the questions. Like you say, a masters holder from the LSE must get the underlying concepts so maybe she was just so nervous and trying to remember the talking points she didn't answer properly.TOPPING said:
It's extraordinary - PPE (ok we expect that) but then an MSc in economics at the LSE. I mean she is not an idiot or economically illiterate and I'm sure could have run rings round Andrew Neill economically.Socrates said:
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=UzPPOHfIp34
Which makes her contortions so disappointing (if I were a Lab supporter) and alienating (for the rest of humanity) that she should not want to tell it like it is and has been "got to" by Lab.
Goodness only knows what she goes to sleep thinking each day she has accomplished for the common good.0 -
Well said.Richard_Tyndall said:
We may nominally be a Christian country but what we are not is either a Catholic nor a fundamentalist Christian country.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
As such your comment is pointless since the vast majority of both Christians and agnostics/atheists have accepted that the 'christian' thing to do is legalise same sex marriage and welcome gays as full, equal members of our society.
I am afraid your societal norms are... well, not normal any more.0 -
He had any?bigjohnowls said:
Oh dear you have just lost all credibility.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.0 -
Ed has led a successful team and can show that he has been able to keep the team united.United we bargain,Divided we beg.Leading an opposition Labour party which remains united is no mean achievement for Ed,the team leader.He has prevented the internal carnage that would have been predictable.Thats what I call leadership.What the PB Tories hate is his superiority over Cameron in the intellectual self-confidence stakes.It's so obvious it irks them.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.
0 -
Reeves and Balls - Labour's economic team. They do both look very good on paper, but when it comes to reality they look poor. No matter how well your uni tutors thought you understood economics, if you're going to ally yourself with Labour then you've proven yourself an idiot.TOPPING said:
Goodness only knows what she goes to sleep thinking each day she has accomplished for the common good.
0 -
I think PB is also extremely energy inefficient why not go for that too!!isam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO0 -
Racism makes me uncomfortable. As a scientist, it's impossible to define a race unless you use a precise set of genetic markers, and then they're just arbitrary. If you refer to someone different owing to cultural or geographical origin, then calling someone a Scouser is a hate crime.
Unfortunately, the insult "racist" morphs into a subjective viewpoint. "You smell, you do," type of disapproval. A bit like commie, lefty or nazi and inevitably becomes the language of the playground.
If you can't define a "race", you can't define a racist.
0 -
After youbigjohnowls said:
I think PB is also extremely energy inefficient why not go for that too!!isam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO0 -
A man and a man can create what exactly? A fellow family member can certainly consent.Socrates said:
Because the first can easily result in children that are severely deformed and a household pet is not of the level of intelligence to consent to such an arrangement.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.0 -
They have have they? That would be why in countries where referendum have been held so called gay marriage almost always loses.Richard_Tyndall said:
We may nominally be a Christian country but what we are not is either a Catholic nor a fundamentalist Christian country.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
As such your comment is pointless since the vast majority of both Christians and agnostics/atheists have accepted that the 'christian' thing to do is legalise same sex marriage and welcome gays as full, equal members of our society.
I am afraid your societal norms are... well, not normal any more.
My opinion is as valid as yours, not least as it has history, religion and science behind it.0 -
Tomorrows BESUS currently likely to predict a Lab Maj given polls seem to have widened (YG still to come though) You may wish to TOTLT/IP at about 8.30am and save even more energyisam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO
0 -
I don't waste any reading thembigjohnowls said:
Tomorrows BESUS currently likely to predict a Lab Maj given polls seem to have widened (YG still to come though) You may wish to TOTLT/IP at about 8.30am and save even more energyisam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO0 -
You predicting a UKIP Government?isam said:
I don't waste any reading thembigjohnowls said:
Tomorrows BESUS currently likely to predict a Lab Maj given polls seem to have widened (YG still to come though) You may wish to TOTLT/IP at about 8.30am and save even more energyisam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO
Time to wake up and smell the EICIPM coffee
0 -
I don't care if he is or notbigjohnowls said:
You predicting a UKIP Government?isam said:
I don't waste any reading thembigjohnowls said:
Tomorrows BESUS currently likely to predict a Lab Maj given polls seem to have widened (YG still to come though) You may wish to TOTLT/IP at about 8.30am and save even more energyisam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO
Time to wake up and smell the EICIPM coffee0 -
On topic it's understandable that a party that has never been in power is seen as least fit to govern, and one that differs from the others on offer, who are three variants of the same thing, are seen as the most extreme.
As ukip are not going to govern it doesn't really mean anything. Noise.0 -
Shall i put you down as a maybe then?!!!!isam said:
I don't care if he is or notbigjohnowls said:
You predicting a UKIP Government?isam said:
I don't waste any reading thembigjohnowls said:
Tomorrows BESUS currently likely to predict a Lab Maj given polls seem to have widened (YG still to come though) You may wish to TOTLT/IP at about 8.30am and save even more energyisam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO
Time to wake up and smell the EICIPM coffee
0 -
Baby steps over to the Cons, Sam - hurrah!isam said:On topic it's understandable that a party that has never been in power is seen as least fit to govern, and one that differs from the others on offer, who are three variants of the same thing, are seen as the most extreme.
As ukip are not going to govern it doesn't really mean anything. Noise.
0 -
It's a thin line between self-confidence and ignorance.....volcanopete said:
Ed has led a successful team and can show that he has been able to keep the team united.United we bargain,Divided we beg.Leading an opposition Labour party which remains united is no mean achievement for Ed,the team leader.He has prevented the internal carnage that would have been predictable.Thats what I call leadership.What the PB Tories hate is his superiority over Cameron in the intellectual self-confidence stakes.It's so obvious it irks them.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.
0 -
Even if I voted for labour it wouldn't make a difference as the Tories will win my seat.bigjohnowls said:
Shall i put you down as a maybe then?!!!!isam said:
I don't care if he is or notbigjohnowls said:
You predicting a UKIP Government?isam said:
I don't waste any reading thembigjohnowls said:
Tomorrows BESUS currently likely to predict a Lab Maj given polls seem to have widened (YG still to come though) You may wish to TOTLT/IP at about 8.30am and save even more energyisam said:
Most accurate prediction you've made on herebigjohnowls said:
Turn the TV off save even moreisam said:One way Milibands speeches help with electricity bills is that I get so embarrassed for him that I am more likely to open the window and let some air in rather than put the heating on
#friends
SWTTVO
Time to wake up and smell the EICIPM coffee
I dont dislike Ed M at all, I kind of want him to do well because of the stick he gets for being a nerd etc
He doesn't enthrall me as a speaker, but few politicians do. Not Farage either. Cameron is the best at that IMO
If he hadn't thrown out Glasman and the Blue Labour idea, I would have almost definitely voted for him, but when he did I joined ukip0 -
Ermmm, isn't there a major party conference going on today? Should that be setting the agenda on a politics site, or even just worth more than just the occasional mention? I am not complaining, you understand, just I thought some people at least would be paying attention to what the possible next party of government would be saying. Perhaps I have got the wrong week.0
-
On topic:
Personally I think that this thread, based on pseudo poll, is a barrel load of shit and not worth discussing.
UKIP with 44 MP's to come.
0 -
Sadly I don't think it is particularly ludicrous. It's certainly an unfair reputation, gained from a unprecedented media hate campaign, but there it is. We have it now, and we must take steps to deal with it.isam said:
In what is likely to be one of the tightest general elections ever, the thread header contends that Labour and conservative voters will vote for each other to keep a third party out, therefore labour voters directly getting conservatives elected and vice versa.Richard_Nabavi said: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.
Absolutely ludicrous
0 -
Yes? What about it?FalseFlag said:Gay marriage eh?
Why should it have any meaning beyond what those involved in the marriage want? Their marriage is for them. If two men or two women choose to marry then that has no impact on me or you. I am not "less" married nor is my marriage made more or less valuable by someone else's choice.FalseFlag said:Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
There are plenty of good reason, all to do with genetics and reinforcement of bad allelles. Look at some of the Bangladeshi community who marry closely and where genetically based conditions are a LOT higher than in the general populationFalseFlag said:Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings
Pets cannot consent or understand the vows to be taken, so it is clear you are just being silly with this pointFalseFlag said:or perhaps beloved household pet?
What a fabulous idea. Let us do that. What about Lot offering his daughters for gang rape (great moral leadership there). What about Deuteronomy where it says that if a women is raped her rapist must marry her. Really? A woman should be forced to marry her rapist?FalseFlag said:We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
"Deuteronomy 22:28-29
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
There plenty of other instances in this "moral guidance" - God ordering the killing of babies, children and so on. And you think this is a good basis for morality?
0 -
Is that why Gordon Brown was summoned from the wilderness to make the speeches that Ed Miliband should have been giving in Scotland?volcanopete said:
Ed has led a successful team and can show that he has been able to keep the team united.United we bargain,Divided we beg.Leading an opposition Labour party which remains united is no mean achievement for Ed,the team leader.He has prevented the internal carnage that would have been predictable.Thats what I call leadership.What the PB Tories hate is his superiority over Cameron in the intellectual self-confidence stakes.It's so obvious it irks them.Hugh said:Off topic, looking forward to Ed's conference speech.
Have a sneaky feeling PB Tories might be frothing almost as much as they were last year with the energy price freeze.0 -
Having religion behind something is certainly nothing to be proud of and does nothing to validate your argument. Appeal to history could be used just as easily to justify slavery and women as chattels. It is invalid as a position. As for science, it has no part in this argument. It is neutral as we are talking entirely of a matter of societal norms and morality.FalseFlag said:
They have have they? That would be why in countries where referendum have been held so called gay marriage almost always loses.
My opinion is as valid as yours, not least as it has history, religion and science behind it.
Now clearly what you consider morality differs greatly from most of the rest of us but that is your problem not ours. In this case I am very happy to point out that your arguments have already been lost and that the new reality is one in which gays are to be treated as equal members of society.
Even UKIP - with whom I disagreed over the opposition to gay marriage - have accepted that this is the new norm in our society and that there is no going back. Get used to it or rail against it. You won't change it.0 -
Mr. Llama, don't worry, the speech of Ed Miliband is yet to come (tomorrow, I think).
Incidentally, as your official televisual adviser, you may be interested in the second (of three) part of the Lost Kingdoms of Central America series, 9pm BBC4 tonight. First bit was quite interesting.0 -
And how I believe we must deal with it (since you all asked), is by replacing Nigel as 'leader'. A tacit acknowledgement that things went wrong (they didn't) and that the matter has been addressed. A Farage who isn't carrying the weight of the party on his ability to diffuse the latest media smear with a funny quip, or survive a hostile interview, is a better and more useful Farage. We need to undergo a visible evolution.0
-
Well, as a Red Liberal I wish Ed WOULD produce some coherent policies. Otherwise I’ll have to go Green. Or maybe even back to Yellow if Clegg gets his marching orders.0
-
A man and a man can not create a severely deformed child, thus that shouldn't be a bar to them marrying. They can however adopt and raise children, and the empirical evidence shows they do that just as well as straight couples.FalseFlag said:
A man and a man can create what exactly? A fellow family member can certainly consent.Socrates said:
Because the first can easily result in children that are severely deformed and a household pet is not of the level of intelligence to consent to such an arrangement.FalseFlag said:
Gay marriage eh?Philip_Thompson said:
Gay marriage issue is important to me, such abuse trying to compel someone's religion on others is disgraceful and no better than those wanting Sharia law.HurstLlama said:Mr. Thompson, I am like you, just and Englishman giving of my own opinions and not seeking to convince anyone of anything.
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.
EU: Better off out I disagree with but I've never said is extreme. What is extreme is the nutters on the bottom of any Telegraph article saying to go against a party promising a referendum because they want a referendum (and don't care if that leads to a party against it coming in). There are perfectly valid reasons for opposing the Tories but wanting an EU referendum is a strange one. Its like opposing Labour because you want taxes.
Immigration: I don't doubt that there's valid reasons to oppose immigration (though I disagree with them). I do think many who do are so because of racism though.
Monogamy, reproduction, the inherent design of male/female bodies just meaningless in the context.
Why shouldn't people be free to marry their siblings or perhaps beloved household pet?
We are a Christian country and it is the basis for our morality and societal norms.
0
