No Clacton bounce with Populus. Labour still just 1% ahead.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 35 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (=), Oth 8 (-1).
When was fieldwork?
We should get an ICM this week.Am waiting for a Scottish poll.The Survation poll for the mail has a Scottish sub sample of 78 so a bit unreliable.For what it is worth the Westminster voting intentions are SNP 47%,Labour 26%,Con 9% LD 5%.Running the numbers would give the SNP 55 seats,Labour 9 and the Lib Dems 1,.Major problem for Ed with loss of 38 seats.
Scottish politics is normally as volatile as cold porridge but the SNP do seem to be doing very well at the moment. Some Scotland specific full polls are due out soon. 1 subsample isn't worth anything though.
Especially when 2 other sub samples , Yougov and Populus give different results .
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
It gets tiring to recycle the same old arguments and never advanced to more nuanced stuff.
1. UKIP wouldn't send all the immigrants home. They would however, stop adding to the problem. That's a huge difference to an extra million coming here every two years.
2. A disproportionate amount of the Brits living in the EU are retirees, so would not be competing in the labour market if they return home. The Spanish would be mad to kick them out, giving they are propping up consumption and the housing market in a depressed economy.
3. UKIP will keep skilled immigration with a points system for people this economy needs. What UKIP are clamping down on is unrestricted immigration to all and sundry, including convicted murderers from Latvia and homeless beggars from Romania. That is the ridiculous position of your party.
4. The reason the jobs are being given to immigrants is because immigrants will take them for less money and put up with more abuse, because for these immigrants the amount of savings they can make is a lot greater in real terms.
5. We could afford far more money for care homes if the government didn't have to pay for EU membership fees and if individuals didn't have to pay inflated grocery bills for the benefit of French farmers.
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
It really isn't.
? It isn't ?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
No Clacton bounce with Populus. Labour still just 1% ahead.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 35 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (=), Oth 8 (-1).
It took a week for the Tory conference bounce to feed through into the Populus figures, I wouldn't count out UKIP just yet with them give it until next week and we may see UKIP up into the high teens and both Lab and Con down into the low thirties rather than mid similar to YouGov.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Corporeal, who has read up on this, said, if the debates happened during the campaign, the broadcasters are obligated to give the GB wide parties equal airtime.
So empty chairing isn't an option.
Empty-chairing may be an option providing that the party being excluded has been given reasonable opportunity and has declined it.
From Ofcom: "6.2 Due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period. Broadcasters must also consider giving appropriate coverage to other parties and independent candidates with significant views and perspectives"
The word 'weight' is significant as this implies that simple membership of the 'major parties' list isn't necessarily enough to guarantee equal coverage, just that they are entitled to appropriately-weighted coverage. To leave the Lib Dems out of one may therefore be justified (and including UKIP in one may also be).
Section 6.9 may also be relevant:
"6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)"
That is in the context of an individual constituency, so the rider may not be applicable. Indeed, the fact that the rider isn't included in the sections dealing with national coverage could imply a deliberate decision that a party's refusal should veto an event. On the other hand, it could be argued that it establishes a principle and that what is applicable at a constituency level ought reasonably to be applicable at a national one. I don't think it's something that we could reach a definitive answer on given what's there.
Very happy with the Dave v Ed format but not with the officiators,both Tories,Kay Burley,from her recent comments, and Jeremy Paxman,from his recent comments.Both are too partial. Better to give the gig to channel4.Cathy Newman and Michael Crick,and the rest of them, would be more straight down the line and would give no-one any favours.
Dunno about Paxman, but Burley used to get giddy talking to Blair and Brown. I object about her involvement not because of her politics, but because she's a lightweight.
Very true she was very warm towards them. But she did fall out with underpants Bryant when he told her she was " a bit dim". Pot calling kettle black?
Should the Greens be included? They only have one MP, so the same as UKIP, but 56 fewer than the LibDems, and fewer than the SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP.
Their national vote share last time was 1.0% (that's combining the 3 Green parties for E&W (0.9%), Scotland (0.1%) and NI (< 0.1%)), compared to the LibDems on 23.0% and UKIP on 3.1%, and also less than the BNP or SNP.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Looking at the last 10 by-elections, the LibDems came higher 7 times, the Greens came higher twice, and neither stood in Mid-Ulster. The Greens' best by-election performance in those 10 contests was only 3.5%. Ignoring Mid-Ulster, the best non-Con/Lab/LD/UKIP performance in those 10 contests was not the Greens but RESPECT, who got 8.3% in Rotherham. (Or you could look at Scottish Parliament by-elections, where the Greens' record is 6th, 6th and didn't stand.)
The Greens' big result was 4th place with 3 MEPs on 6.9% in the Euro-elections, compared to 1 MEP on 6.6% for the LibDems, and 2 MEPs on 2.4% for the SNP. But at the local elections on the same day, the Greens got 38 councillors to 163 UKIP and 427 LD.
So, should we include the Greens (in the context of including LD and UKIP while presumably excluding the SNP, BNP, DUP &c.)?
The 2010 results say no. By-election performance says no. Local election results say no. Euro-elections say yes. Polls say maybe. Predicted MP numbers based on those polls say no.
In the Euros the only reason the Greens got any MEPs was because of a spoiler campaign by 'An Independence from Europe'. By contrast, UKIP beat all the main parties.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
Should the Greens be included? They only have one MP, so the same as UKIP, but 56 fewer than the LibDems, and fewer than the SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP.
Their national vote share last time was 1.0% (that's combining the 3 Green parties for E&W (0.9%), Scotland (0.1%) and NI (< 0.1%)), compared to the LibDems on 23.0% and UKIP on 3.1%, and also less than the BNP or SNP.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Looking at the last 10 by-elections, the LibDems came higher 7 times, the Greens came higher twice, and neither stood in Mid-Ulster. The Greens' best by-election performance in those 10 contests was only 3.5%. Ignoring Mid-Ulster, the best non-Con/Lab/LD/UKIP performance in those 10 contests was not the Greens but RESPECT, who got 8.3% in Rotherham. (Or you could look at Scottish Parliament by-elections, where the Greens' record is 6th, 6th and didn't stand.)
The Greens' big result was 4th place with 3 MEPs on 6.9% in the Euro-elections, compared to 1 MEP on 6.6% for the LibDems, and 2 MEPs on 2.4% for the SNP. But at the local elections on the same day, the Greens got 38 councillors to 163 UKIP and 427 LD.
So, should we include the Greens (in the context of including LD and UKIP while presumably excluding the SNP, BNP, DUP &c.)?
The 2010 results say no. By-election performance says no. Local election results say no. Euro-elections say yes. Polls say maybe. Predicted MP numbers based on those polls say no.
In the Euros the only reason the Greens got any MEPs was because of a spoiler campaign by 'An Independence from Europe'.
However did they manage to win seats in every previous Euro election since PR was introduced ?
Should the Greens be included? They only have one MP, so the same as UKIP, but 56 fewer than the LibDems, and fewer than the SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP.
Their national vote share last time was 1.0% (that's combining the 3 Green parties for E&W (0.9%), Scotland (0.1%) and NI (< 0.1%)), compared to the LibDems on 23.0% and UKIP on 3.1%, and also less than the BNP or SNP.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Looking at the last 10 by-elections, the LibDems came higher 7 times, the Greens came higher twice, and neither stood in Mid-Ulster. The Greens' best by-election performance in those 10 contests was only 3.5%. Ignoring Mid-Ulster, the best non-Con/Lab/LD/UKIP performance in those 10 contests was not the Greens but RESPECT, who got 8.3% in Rotherham. (Or you could look at Scottish Parliament by-elections, where the Greens' record is 6th, 6th and didn't stand.)
The Greens' big result was 4th place with 3 MEPs on 6.9% in the Euro-elections, compared to 1 MEP on 6.6% for the LibDems, and 2 MEPs on 2.4% for the SNP. But at the local elections on the same day, the Greens got 38 councillors to 163 UKIP and 427 LD.
So, should we include the Greens (in the context of including LD and UKIP while presumably excluding the SNP, BNP, DUP &c.)?
The 2010 results say no. By-election performance says no. Local election results say no. Euro-elections say yes. Polls say maybe. Predicted MP numbers based on those polls say no.
In the Euros the only reason the Greens got any MEPs was because of a spoiler campaign by 'An Independence from Europe'.
However did they manage to win seats in every previous Euro election since PR was introduced ?
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
50? 5,000? 500,000? Do you really expect me to know the number? I was more concerned that I was going to have to explain the mechanics.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
It gets tiring to recycle the same old arguments and never advanced to more nuanced stuff.
1. UKIP wouldn't send all the immigrants home. They would however, stop adding to the problem. That's a huge difference to an extra million coming here every two years.
2. A disproportionate amount of the Brits living in the EU are retirees, so would not be competing in the labour market if they return home. The Spanish would be mad to kick them out, giving they are propping up consumption and the housing market in a depressed economy.
3. UKIP will keep skilled immigration with a points system for people this economy needs. What UKIP are clamping down on is unrestricted immigration to all and sundry, including convicted murderers from Latvia and homeless beggars from Romania. That is the ridiculous position of your party.
4. The reason the jobs are being given to immigrants is because immigrants will take them for less money and put up with more abuse, because for these immigrants the amount of savings they can make is a lot greater in real terms.
5. We could afford far more money for care homes if the government didn't have to pay for EU membership fees and if individuals didn't have to pay inflated grocery bills for the benefit of French farmers.
I have asked this question on here before, what is UKIPs policy to the 400,000 French people who live in London. Can they all stay?
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Can't quite follow your logic there old bean. Seems a bit of a non-sequitur; how does gay people getting wed stop the population as a whole reproducing?
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
And do you think that if the gay are deprived of the right to marry they will say "Dammit! Foiled again! I'll have to marry a member of the opposite sex and start breeding!"
You sure it's wise for you to call other people stupid?
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
50? 5,000? 500,000? Do you really expect me to know the number? I was more concerned that I was going to have to explain the mechanics.
I'd sell at 500,000
and possibly at 5,000!
But the point remains, if a financially poor gay couple want to start a family without adopting, I think they would struggle
I wouldn't think it discriminatory to point out that Gay people don't particularly help with increasing the population. I am not saying that matters, but wonder why you felt the need to argue the point
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
It really isn't.
? It isn't ?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
It gets tiring to recycle the same old arguments and never advanced to more nuanced stuff.
1. UKIP wouldn't send all the immigrants home. They would however, stop adding to the problem. That's a huge difference to an extra million coming here every two years.
2. A disproportionate amount of the Brits living in the EU are retirees, so would not be competing in the labour market if they return home. The Spanish would be mad to kick them out, giving they are propping up consumption and the housing market in a depressed economy.
3. UKIP will keep skilled immigration with a points system for people this economy needs. What UKIP are clamping down on is unrestricted immigration to all and sundry, including convicted murderers from Latvia and homeless beggars from Romania. That is the ridiculous position of your party.
4. The reason the jobs are being given to immigrants is because immigrants will take them for less money and put up with more abuse, because for these immigrants the amount of savings they can make is a lot greater in real terms.
5. We could afford far more money for care homes if the government didn't have to pay for EU membership fees and if individuals didn't have to pay inflated grocery bills for the benefit of French farmers.
I have asked this question on here before, what is UKIPs policy to the 400,000 French people who live in London. Can they all stay?
UKIP's policy is that those that have been working here for seven years by the time of the withdrawal will be able to automatically stay. Out of those that don't qualify to be grandfather in, they are free to apply under a points system based on how much they contribute.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Corporeal, who has read up on this, said, if the debates happened during the campaign, the broadcasters are obligated to give the GB wide parties equal airtime.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
And do you think that if the gay are deprived of the right to marry they will say "Dammit! Foiled again! I'll have to marry a member of the opposite sex and start breeding!"
You sure it's wise for you to call other people stupid?
Well Ninoinoz is stupid.
He ranted that Maria Miller's 2012 conference speech was all about gay marriage and not about Savile and paedos.
He shut up about that when I pointed out to him that
1) Maria Miller only made one reference to gay marriage in her speech
2) As the police were beginning to launch Yewtree it was prudent for her not to comment.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
Hmm poor effort Southam... I've had to press the troll button!
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
Hmm poor effort Southam... I've had to press the troll button!
How exactly was that trolling?? I thought it was a pretty amusing concept!
UKIP's policy is that those that have been working here for seven years by the time of the withdrawal will be able to automatically stay. Out of those that don't qualify to be grandfather in, they are free to apply under a points system based on how much they contribute.
So, repatriation; which assumes reciprocity - so no benefit whatsoever as far as the unemployed are concerned! So, in reality, not a considered well thought out policy but knee-jerk populism then...
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
It really isn't.
? It isn't ?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
Hmm poor effort Southam... I've had to press the troll button!
How exactly was that trolling?? I thought it was a pretty amusing concept!
Oh I don't care, I m sure it was meant as a joke!
The EU bit was aimed to wind up a kipper, no doubt in an obvious way
Its a strawman if it is serious as I didn't say the on going creation of new generations would cease, I said it there would be less children born
So, repatriation; which assumes reciprocity - so no benefit whatsoever as far as the unemployed are concerned! So, in reality, not a considered well thought out policy but knee-jerk populism then...
You didn't even bother to read the whole post which addresses this. There's no point in me engaging in debate if you're going to be moronic about it.
PS. Can you stop messing up the quote system? It's annoying to correct it every time I reply.
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
It really isn't.
? It isn't ?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
UKIP's policy is that those that have been working here for seven years by the time of the withdrawal will be able to automatically stay. Out of those that don't qualify to be grandfather in, they are free to apply under a points system based on how much they contribute
Laughably simplistic. There must be thousands of British citizens who have married someone from the EU in the last 7 years and have settled here - are you going to have them "apply under a points based system" so they can continue to live here? What about EU students? And children? Neither of these groups will be working.
And how will the absurdly high cost of administering all this be paid for?
But there's one thing I don't understand in all of this. Free movement is a consequence of the UK's membership of the EEA, not the EU. AFAIK UKIP are not advocating withdrawing from the EEA, so how can they claim to be able to stop EU migration anyway?
Surely the debates will happen in some form because they've all got more to gain than to lose - or so they will see it - in a very tight race (or an existentially threatening race for the LDs).
Cameron will believe he can thump Ed: he will want the debates Ed will believe that with expectations so low, he might surprise on the upside: he will want the debates Clegg is staring at disaster. He needs a gamechanger. He will want the debates, desperately Farage will want the debates, just because
So they are just arguing over the format and the small print, and how to exclude the Greens and SNP.
I reckon it's more like 1/4 that a version of the debates will happen, not 1/2. No, I have no desire to put money on it.
This doesn't seem to be what's happening at all.
First, I don't see why they'd all see they had more to gain than lose. If Ed thinks he has more possible upside than downside to appearing in a debate, why wouldn't Cameron think the same thing? Between that and the risk of Farage getting even more exposure, I don't think it's at all clear that Cameron would want a debate, and from what I've read, Crosby is against it.
Plus the Tories want to include the greens. It's the other two (maybe three? Not sure if UKIP cares) who want to exclude them
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
Hmm poor effort Southam... I've had to press the troll button!
How exactly was that trolling?? I thought it was a pretty amusing concept!
Oh I don't care, I m sure it was meant as a joke!
The EU bit was aimed to wind up a kipper, no doubt in an obvious way
Its a strawman if it is serious as I didn't say the on going creation of new generations would cease, I said it there would be less children born
Has the law somehow changed the number of gay people there are?
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
It really isn't.
? It isn't ?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
PB is going to be febrile during the GE. Advocating gay marriage means you're "stupid", and apparently, most voters are "dumb"!
As a wwc, public sector striking union member, genuine undecided, libertarianish voter, how will I cope?
Which seat are you in ?
Nicky Morgan's.
You have a massive amount of voting power then I reckon. Your vote will be one of those that decides the next Gov't.
I know. I've decided to genuinely give all the candidates a fair chance, attend meetings where possible, read the leaflets, and hopefully get the chance to talk to them. I know nothing of the others, but have had dealings with Nicky Morgan when she was a ppc- she got involved in an unsuccessful campaign to keep Loughbourough fire station at 3 pumps.......but now she seems happy to see Loughborough to go down to one pump now she's in government! I'll report my findings, if any!
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
Hmm poor effort Southam... I've had to press the troll button!
How exactly was that trolling?? I thought it was a pretty amusing concept!
Oh I don't care, I m sure it was meant as a joke!
The EU bit was aimed to wind up a kipper, no doubt in an obvious way
Its a strawman if it is serious as I didn't say the on going creation of new generations would cease, I said it there would be less children born
Has the law somehow changed the number of gay people there are?
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? '
Has it es?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Gay people adopting children doesn't increase the population though does it?
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
Let's leave biology 101 for a later time.
Its ok do it now
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
If the whole country was gay self-interest would ensure the on-going creation of new generations. And as it would have to be planned it might actually work best. Maybe to get to the perfect population levels the world should be gay. Maybe the EU could begin to work on this ...
Hmm poor effort Southam... I've had to press the troll button!
How exactly was that trolling?? I thought it was a pretty amusing concept!
Oh I don't care, I m sure it was meant as a joke!
The EU bit was aimed to wind up a kipper, no doubt in an obvious way
Its a strawman if it is serious as I didn't say the on going creation of new generations would cease, I said it there would be less children born
Has the law somehow changed the number of gay people there are?
Yeah. Gay marriage will be mandatory even for heterosexuals.
So, repatriation; which assumes reciprocity - so no benefit whatsoever as far as the unemployed are concerned! So, in reality, not a considered well thought out policy but knee-jerk populism then...
PB is going to be febrile during the GE. Advocating gay marriage means you're "stupid", and apparently, most voters are "dumb"!
As a wwc, public sector striking union member, genuine undecided, libertarianish voter, how will I cope?
Which seat are you in ?
Nicky Morgan's.
You have a massive amount of voting power then I reckon. Your vote will be one of those that decides the next Gov't.
I know. I've decided to genuinely give all the candidates a fair chance, attend meetings where possible, read the leaflets, and hopefully get the chance to talk to them. I know nothing of the others, but have had dealings with Nicky Morgan when she was a ppc- she got involved in a campaign to keep Loughbourough fire station at 3 pumps.......but now she seems happy to see Loughborough to go down to one pump now she's in government! I'll report my findings, if any!
I expect you're going to get bombarded by leaflets, canvassing and phone calls from Lord Ashcroft between now and Election Day.
Poor you.
Fortunately I've only ever lived in safe seats so have missed out on this pleasure.
Surely the debates will happen in some form because they've all got more to gain than to lose - or so they will see it - in a very tight race (or an existentially threatening race for the LDs).
Cameron will believe he can thump Ed: he will want the debates Ed will believe that with expectations so low, he might surprise on the upside: he will want the debates Clegg is staring at disaster. He needs a gamechanger. He will want the debates, desperately Farage will want the debates, just because
So they are just arguing over the format and the small print, and how to exclude the Greens and SNP.
I reckon it's more like 1/4 that a version of the debates will happen, not 1/2. No, I have no desire to put money on it.
The SNP are not even standing in 2/3 of the country. Have they even requested to be part of the debates? I can't see how them chiming in on everything with 'In Scotland...' is going to endear them to anyone, including Scottish voters, who would be acutely embarrassed I imagine.
Add in the negative optics of being seen to avoid the debates - the prime minister/Labour leader is too scared! - I am fairly sure the debates will occur. In some form.
Your colleague is not so sure
So when all is said and done, what really is the upside of Cameron debating anyone? If he doesn’t, the media and his opponents will attack him. And precisely no one in the wider world will care a jot. “You heard the bad news Bill? No leadership debates. We’re going to have to watch the Champion’s League instead.” “Seriously? Bloody Cameron. He’s lost my vote”.
Farage in the debates - might be worth watching now.
It would be fun to hear his views on marriage and sleaze in the Westminster Establishment as Roger Helmer slinks into massage parlours just like the stereotypical naughty MP.
One issue with this 2-3-4 format is how the topics are covered. Last time around there was one debate on domestic policy, one on foreign policy and one on the economy. Surely they would have to have 3 debates on all topics or it becomes unfair on Clegg and Farage?
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 22 hrs 22 hours ago #UKIP "first past the post" in aggregate vote across Westminster by-elections in 2014 so far: UKIP 37, Lab 28, Con 26
One issue with this 2-3-4 format is how the topics are covered. Last time around there was one debate on domestic policy, one on foreign policy and one on the economy. Surely they would have to have 3 debates on all topics or it becomes unfair on Clegg and Farage?
I say there should be three debates
Each is one hour long
Each has a different topic as you say
Cameron, Clegg, Farage & Miliband for the opening half an hour
Cameron vs Miliband for the last half an hour
If the Greens are polling in the mid teens and UKIP are on 5-6% by April, then replace Farage with Bennett
But the point remains, if a financially poor gay couple want to start a family without adopting, I think they would struggle
I think what sometimes happens is that a financially poor male gay couple meet a financially poor female gay couple and a mutually beneficial arrangement is worked out.
Insofar as gay marriage affects anything then it might reassure everyone involved that everyone else was committed for the long-term.
I'll repeat it slowly so you understand. It's going to be a tight race. All parties will want to take every advantage. Given that political leaders tend to be people blessed with unusual amounts of self-belief, Cameron and Miliband will both believe they can gain an advantage from the debates. Clearly they can't both be right, at the same time, but that's how they will think.
Clegg and Farage will want the debates desperately, for reasons cited.
Add in the negative optics of being seen to avoid the debates - the prime minister/Labour leader is too scared! - I am fairly sure the debates will occur. In some form.
You can repeat the same baseless assertion until you're blue in the face about how political leaders are too irrational to make sensible campaign decisions, that doesn't mean I'll agree with- er, I mean "understand"- it. Especially as Cameron is already clearly working towards obstruction.
For the debates NOT to happen, to my mind, it needs two of the main leaders to really and simultaneously not want them to happen. Seems unlikely.
So far none of leaders have endorsed them in their current form, not even Farage.
This won't help
@Nigel_Farage: Cameron comparing UKIP to the Green Party devalues the support of the millions of those who have placed their trust in UKIP this year alone
Mind you it would be fun listening to Sturgeon explaining how Scotland would fair on oil at $88 a barrel and falling.
Its Westminster's fault!
Just like this:
Scotland’s Finance Minister has been warned by his hand-picked advisers that his “punitive” new tax on buying a home is not expected to raise as much money as he hopes.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 21 hrs 21 hours ago #UKIP vote exceeds 50% in aggregate vote at Heywood and Clacton by-elections: UKIP 50.4%, Lab 24.4%, Con 19%, LD 3%
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/521319049847115776
Yes, I thought that was interesting - but they only won one seat, because their vote was too concentrated - expect they'll have the opposite problem at the GE.
I agree with SeanT and isam that the debates will probably happen. David Cameron has most motive for them not to happen, but by basically adopting the format that he's suggested, he's trapped, unless he's helped out of his hole by one of the other party leaders. If they're sensible, none of them will help him.
His best hope is that the Greens or the SNP (or both?) challenge the plan in the courts and win.
I wouldn't think it discriminatory to point out that Gay people don't particularly help with increasing the population. I am not saying that matters, but wonder why you felt the need to argue the point
The idea that gay people dont have children is for the birds. I was just pointing that out. I wonder why you felt the need to argue the point.
Debates beamed into Scotland that include UKIP but exclude the SNP are further evidence of the irrelevance of Scotland as part of the UK.
The debates will look exactly what they are-England talking to England with everybody else excluded.
The democratic solution is what it has always been. The three or four unionist leaders should, as the most important politicians for Scotland, have a debate, broadcast only to Scotland - others can watch if they wish :-) in which Sturgeon (or perhaps Robertson as an MP) is included, but the unionists are required to justify their policies to the Scottish electorate.
There is no question in my mind that the exclusion of the SNP from the debates in 2010 adversely affected the SNP vote in Scotland.
Given the 45% Yes vote on a massive poll for the Referendum, I am happy that this time either the SNP will be included in a debate, OR bitterness about the inclusion of UKIP and exclusion of the SNP, will adversely effect the unionist votes in Scotland.
One issue with this 2-3-4 format is how the topics are covered. Last time around there was one debate on immigration, one on immigration and one on immigration.
Is how I remember the questions from the audience.
Debates beamed into Scotland that include UKIP but exclude the SNP are further evidence of the irrelevance of Scotland as part of the UK.
The debates will look exactly what they are-England talking to England with everybody else excluded.
The democratic solution is what it has always been. The three or four unionist leaders should, as the most important politicians for Scotland, have a debate, broadcast only to Scotland - others can watch if they wish :-) in which Sturgeon (or perhaps Robertson as an MP) is included, but the unionists are required to justify their policies to the Scottish electorate.
There is no question in my mind that the exclusion of the SNP from the debates in 2010 adversely affected the SNP vote in Scotland.
Given the 45% Yes vote on a massive poll for the Referendum, I am happy that this time either the SNP will be included in a debate, OR bitterness about the inclusion of UKIP and exclusion of the SNP, will adversely effect the unionist votes in Scotland.
Thanks for reminding us the Nats lost on a massive turnout.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
It gets tiring to recycle the same old arguments and never advanced to more nuanced stuff.
1. UKIP wouldn't send all the immigrants home. They would however, stop adding to the problem. That's a huge difference to an extra million coming here every two years.
2. A disproportionate amount of the Brits living in the EU are retirees, so would not be competing in the labour market if they return home. The Spanish would be mad to kick them out, giving they are propping up consumption and the housing market in a depressed economy.
3. UKIP will keep skilled immigration with a points system for people this economy needs. What UKIP are clamping down on is unrestricted immigration to all and sundry, including convicted murderers from Latvia and homeless beggars from Romania. That is the ridiculous position of your party.
4. The reason the jobs are being given to immigrants is because immigrants will take them for less money and put up with more abuse, because for these immigrants the amount of savings they can make is a lot greater in real terms.
5. We could afford far more money for care homes if the government didn't have to pay for EU membership fees and if individuals didn't have to pay inflated grocery bills for the benefit of French farmers.
I have asked this question on here before, what is UKIPs policy to the 400,000 French people who live in London. Can they all stay?
UKIP's policy is that those that have been working here for seven years by the time of the withdrawal will be able to automatically stay. Out of those that don't qualify to be grandfather in, they are free to apply under a points system based on how much they contribute.
To answer an earlier point about the number of French People in London
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930
I would imagine that UKIPs policy will mean a lot of these will have to go home. How on earth will they enforce it, interview each person and then do some sort of skills assessment. How would the French government react to this and what wil happen to the hundreds of thousands of British people who live in France.?
Its easy to be populist, much harder to implement the policies.
As i said the other day one of our sparks is voting UKIP as he believes they will get rid of all the blacks!! Mad I know, but I am sure that he is not only in believing that somehow UKIP will make the UKs population ethnic mix return to 1930s figures.
I’ve pledged to streak naked down Whitehall if Ukip break 6 per cent at the next election. If Cameron agrees to debate Farage then that pledge is null and void, and the Prime Minister (ex-prime minister as he’ll be by then) can do it for me.,/i>
I wouldn't think it discriminatory to point out that Gay people don't particularly help with increasing the population. I am not saying that matters, but wonder why you felt the need to argue the point
The idea that gay people dont have children is for the birds. I was just pointing that out. I wonder why you felt the need to argue the point.
I cant really be doing with you when you start getting "clever clever smart arse" to be honest
You are too biased to have an objective view on it. In the spirit of live and let live, I'll leave you to it
"I’ve pledged to streak naked down Whitehall if Ukip break 6 per cent at the next election. If Cameron agrees to debate Farage then that pledge is null and void, and the Prime Minister (ex-prime minister as he’ll be by then) can do it for me."
Farage in the debates - might be worth watching now.
Off topic how does Southam do it? talks about drought and then its rain, rain, rain.
That's how I do it. Predicting what you want to happen not happening usually makes it happen in my experience, especially the more publicly and volubly you do it. The only time this does not work is with football and Tottenham Hotspur in particular. Sadly, I am usually proved right by Spurs.
I’ve pledged to streak naked down Whitehall if Ukip break 6 per cent at the next election. If Cameron agrees to debate Farage then that pledge is null and void, and the Prime Minister (ex-prime minister as he’ll be by then) can do it for me.,/i>
That noise you can hear is the sound of thousands of people working in the Westminster area all sighing in relief.
What is the schedule for DevoMAx (and by implication for EV4EL)? Will the imminent changes blunt any SNP demands for inclusion?
If you don't like 2, 3, 4 try something else
Change the debates to: One: Prime Ministers (Potential) Ed / Dave One: Parliamentary Parties Leaders - fighting 75% or more seats One: Others are allowed, fighting 35% of seats or average of 5% VI in polls the month before.
I'd be seriously surprised if the UK becomes the only democratic country to institute general election TV debates, and then scrap them. Has any other country done that? No.
The first US presidential-candidate debate was in 1960 (the famous Nixon/Kennedy one), but there were none in the next three elections. It wasn't until 1976 that the next one occurred.
I wouldn't think it discriminatory to point out that Gay people don't particularly help with increasing the population. I am not saying that matters, but wonder why you felt the need to argue the point
The idea that gay people dont have children is for the birds. I was just pointing that out. I wonder why you felt the need to argue the point.
You are too biased to have an objective view on it.
Whether or not gay people can have children isnt something to have a view on or not; it's a fact that they can and do.
I wouldn't think it discriminatory to point out that Gay people don't particularly help with increasing the population. I am not saying that matters, but wonder why you felt the need to argue the point
The idea that gay people dont have children is for the birds. I was just pointing that out. I wonder why you felt the need to argue the point.
You are too biased to have an objective view on it.
Whether or not gay people can have children isnt something to have a view on or not; it's a fact that they can and do.
I’ve pledged to streak naked down Whitehall if Ukip break 6 per cent at the next election. If Cameron agrees to debate Farage then that pledge is null and void, and the Prime Minister (ex-prime minister as he’ll be by then) can do it for me.,/i>
That noise you can hear is the sound of thousands of people working in the Westminster area all sighing in relief.
Comments
1. UKIP wouldn't send all the immigrants home. They would however, stop adding to the problem. That's a huge difference to an extra million coming here every two years.
2. A disproportionate amount of the Brits living in the EU are retirees, so would not be competing in the labour market if they return home. The Spanish would be mad to kick them out, giving they are propping up consumption and the housing market in a depressed economy.
3. UKIP will keep skilled immigration with a points system for people this economy needs. What UKIP are clamping down on is unrestricted immigration to all and sundry, including convicted murderers from Latvia and homeless beggars from Romania. That is the ridiculous position of your party.
4. The reason the jobs are being given to immigrants is because immigrants will take them for less money and put up with more abuse, because for these immigrants the amount of savings they can make is a lot greater in real terms.
5. We could afford far more money for care homes if the government didn't have to pay for EU membership fees and if individuals didn't have to pay inflated grocery bills for the benefit of French farmers.
I'm always left with the impression that she's in broadcast mode 99% of the time.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/07/16/populus-responds-to-some-of-the-points-about-its-new-online-poll/
So I take it you mean by surrogate..
How many of them have there been in UK history?
How would a gay couple on the minimum wage increase the population?
I asked about surrogates, which covers your 101 smuggery..
How many gay couple have their own children, born while they were with a gay partner rather than those from a previous heterosexual relationship??
Are you saying if the whole country was gay, there would be just as many children born?
Seems a bit of a non-sequitur; how does gay people getting wed stop the population as a whole reproducing?
You sure it's wise for you to call other people stupid?
and possibly at 5,000!
But the point remains, if a financially poor gay couple want to start a family without adopting, I think they would struggle
I wouldn't think it discriminatory to point out that Gay people don't particularly help with increasing the population. I am not saying that matters, but wonder why you felt the need to argue the point
So if Populus ever have UKIP on 25% we can be fairly certain they are heading for a thumping majority
He ranted that Maria Miller's 2012 conference speech was all about gay marriage and not about Savile and paedos.
He shut up about that when I pointed out to him that
1) Maria Miller only made one reference to gay marriage in her speech
2) As the police were beginning to launch Yewtree it was prudent for her not to comment.
As a wwc, public sector striking union member, genuine undecided, libertarianish voter, how will I cope?
But I raise you the fact that I'm a Muslim gay marriage advocate. That's pissed off a few Kippers
So, repatriation; which assumes reciprocity - so no benefit whatsoever as far as the unemployed are concerned! So, in reality, not a considered well thought out policy but knee-jerk populism then...
All the pollsters have a problem with too many people saying they voted UKIP 2010.
The EU bit was aimed to wind up a kipper, no doubt in an obvious way
Its a strawman if it is serious as I didn't say the on going creation of new generations would cease, I said it there would be less children born
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/mro/news-release/census-2-1----london/census-gives-insights-into-characteristics-of-london-s-population.html
PS. Can you stop messing up the quote system? It's annoying to correct it every time I reply.
Neither do Yougov
And how will the absurdly high cost of administering all this be paid for?
But there's one thing I don't understand in all of this. Free movement is a consequence of the UK's membership of the EEA, not the EU. AFAIK UKIP are not advocating withdrawing from the EEA, so how can they claim to be able to stop EU migration anyway?
First, I don't see why they'd all see they had more to gain than lose. If Ed thinks he has more possible upside than downside to appearing in a debate, why wouldn't Cameron think the same thing? Between that and the risk of Farage getting even more exposure, I don't think it's at all clear that Cameron would want a debate, and from what I've read, Crosby is against it.
Plus the Tories want to include the greens. It's the other two (maybe three? Not sure if UKIP cares) who want to exclude them
http://survation.com/a-note-on-methodology-for-our-constituency-phone-polls/
Kippers too stupid to remember who they voted for :-)
I'll dig out the ICM note on this.
My own hunch is that UKIP's support is drawn from 2010 non voters as the past recall numbers for the 2010 LDs, Con and Lab are about right.
I've decided to genuinely give all the candidates a fair chance, attend meetings where possible, read the leaflets, and hopefully get the chance to talk to them. I know nothing of the others, but have had dealings with Nicky Morgan when she was a ppc- she got involved in an unsuccessful campaign to keep Loughbourough fire station at 3 pumps.......but now she seems happy to see Loughborough to go down to one pump now she's in government!
I'll report my findings, if any!
Mmmmm more lesbians.
Poor you.
Fortunately I've only ever lived in safe seats so have missed out on this pleasure.
There would be almost no children born whose biological parents were in love with each other though whatever the answer
:InnocentFace
Off topic how does Southam do it? talks about drought and then its rain, rain, rain.
http://news.sky.com/story/1352008/leaders-react-to-plan-for-election-debates
#UKIP vote exceeds 50% in aggregate vote at Heywood and Clacton by-elections: UKIP 50.4%, Lab 24.4%, Con 19%, LD 3%
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/521319049847115776
#UKIP "first past the post" in aggregate vote across Westminster by-elections in 2014 so far: UKIP 37, Lab 28, Con 26
twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/521313156636098560
Each is one hour long
Each has a different topic as you say
Cameron, Clegg, Farage & Miliband for the opening half an hour
Cameron vs Miliband for the last half an hour
If the Greens are polling in the mid teens and UKIP are on 5-6% by April, then replace Farage with Bennett
Insofar as gay marriage affects anything then it might reassure everyone involved that everyone else was committed for the long-term.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/10/nhs-reform-the-problem-wasnt-the-plan-it-was-the-bill.html
This won't help
@Nigel_Farage: Cameron comparing UKIP to the Green Party devalues the support of the millions of those who have placed their trust in UKIP this year alone
Just like this:
Scotland’s Finance Minister has been warned by his hand-picked advisers that his “punitive” new tax on buying a home is not expected to raise as much money as he hopes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11155289/Advisors-warn-John-Swinney-of-property-tax-shortfall.html
Scotland proposals out at 2.30.
Will the Nats be happy?
How many guesses do I get?
1.All parties debate why they'll deffo do debates, but not these ones
2.All debate whose fault it is there was no debate
His best hope is that the Greens or the SNP (or both?) challenge the plan in the courts and win.
The debates will look exactly what they are-England talking to England with everybody else excluded.
The democratic solution is what it has always been. The three or four unionist leaders should, as the most important politicians for Scotland, have a debate, broadcast only to Scotland - others can watch if they wish :-) in which Sturgeon (or perhaps Robertson as an MP) is included, but the unionists are required to justify their policies to the Scottish electorate.
There is no question in my mind that the exclusion of the SNP from the debates in 2010 adversely affected the SNP vote in Scotland.
Given the 45% Yes vote on a massive poll for the Referendum, I am happy that this time either the SNP will be included in a debate, OR bitterness about the inclusion of UKIP and exclusion of the SNP, will adversely effect the unionist votes in Scotland.
Warms my Unionist heart.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
It gets tiring to recycle the same old arguments and never advanced to more nuanced stuff.
1. UKIP wouldn't send all the immigrants home. They would however, stop adding to the problem. That's a huge difference to an extra million coming here every two years.
2. A disproportionate amount of the Brits living in the EU are retirees, so would not be competing in the labour market if they return home. The Spanish would be mad to kick them out, giving they are propping up consumption and the housing market in a depressed economy.
3. UKIP will keep skilled immigration with a points system for people this economy needs. What UKIP are clamping down on is unrestricted immigration to all and sundry, including convicted murderers from Latvia and homeless beggars from Romania. That is the ridiculous position of your party.
4. The reason the jobs are being given to immigrants is because immigrants will take them for less money and put up with more abuse, because for these immigrants the amount of savings they can make is a lot greater in real terms.
5. We could afford far more money for care homes if the government didn't have to pay for EU membership fees and if individuals didn't have to pay inflated grocery bills for the benefit of French farmers.
I have asked this question on here before, what is UKIPs policy to the 400,000 French people who live in London. Can they all stay?
UKIP's policy is that those that have been working here for seven years by the time of the withdrawal will be able to automatically stay. Out of those that don't qualify to be grandfather in, they are free to apply under a points system based on how much they contribute.
To answer an earlier point about the number of French People in London
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18234930
I would imagine that UKIPs policy will mean a lot of these will have to go home. How on earth will they enforce it, interview each person and then do some sort of skills assessment. How would the French government react to this and what wil happen to the hundreds of thousands of British people who live in France.?
Its easy to be populist, much harder to implement the policies.
As i said the other day one of our sparks is voting UKIP as he believes they will get rid of all the blacks!! Mad I know, but I am sure that he is not only in believing that somehow UKIP will make the UKs population ethnic mix return to 1930s figures.
I’ve pledged to streak naked down Whitehall if Ukip break 6 per cent at the next election. If Cameron agrees to debate Farage then that pledge is null and void, and the Prime Minister (ex-prime minister as he’ll be by then) can do it for me.,/i>
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100289353/if-david-cameron-agrees-to-debate-nigel-farage-hes-an-idiot-there-are-no-upsides/
I think he does a rain dance myself. Or it's witchcraft. I think we should be told.
You are too biased to have an objective view on it. In the spirit of live and let live, I'll leave you to it
"I’ve pledged to streak naked down Whitehall if Ukip break 6 per cent at the next election. If Cameron agrees to debate Farage then that pledge is null and void, and the Prime Minister (ex-prime minister as he’ll be by then) can do it for me."
What is the schedule for DevoMAx (and by implication for EV4EL)?
Will the imminent changes blunt any SNP demands for inclusion?
If you don't like 2, 3, 4 try something else
Change the debates to:
One: Prime Ministers (Potential) Ed / Dave
One: Parliamentary Parties Leaders - fighting 75% or more seats
One: Others are allowed, fighting 35% of seats or average of 5% VI in polls the month before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates
That it should be up to the individual gay couple to decide whether they get married?