Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As UKIP surges Ipsos-MORI finds that support for wanting to

24

Comments

  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Jonathan said:

    shadsy said:

    Had a few requests for a price on there being 2 elections next year. So we're offering 10/1. Here are some thoughts http://t.co/X2e6aDe3qK

    Very interesting. Apparently some city folk are seriously contemplating three party coalitions/agreements.
    Which three parties?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023

    Jonathan said:

    shadsy said:

    Had a few requests for a price on there being 2 elections next year. So we're offering 10/1. Here are some thoughts http://t.co/X2e6aDe3qK

    Very interesting. Apparently some city folk are seriously contemplating three party coalitions/agreements.
    Which three parties?
    SNP-DUP-PC-Con coalition nailed on - A Gov't of "All the nations."
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078

    I propose a referendum on the monarchy. I have no doubt that the retentionists will win. But the public deserves a voice. We must be allowed our chance!!!

    I would put the question a different way."Do you want the Uk to be a republic?".There is no point in asking such a question during the reign of Queen Elizabeth The Second but on the accession of King Charles The Third the opportunity arises for republicans to have a fair chance of change.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023

    I propose a referendum on the monarchy. I have no doubt that the retentionists will win. But the public deserves a voice. We must be allowed our chance!!!

    I would put the question a different way."Do you want the Uk to be a republic?".There is no point in asking such a question during the reign of Queen Elizabeth The Second but on the accession of King Charles The Third the opportunity arises for republicans to have a fair chance of change.
    King George VII.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    10/1 are not good odds on two elections in 2015. Even if the Parliamentary numbers are chaotic, time is against this. In 1910, the two elections were in January and December. In 1974, the two elections were in February and October.

    In 2015, it looks highly likely that the (first) election will be in May. For a second election in 2015, the government would need to collapse more quickly than any post-election government has collapsed since the 19th century and no new government could be created and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act would need repealing or sidestepping and the new election would need to be held in 2015.

    And, of course, we're assuming that no stable government could be created in the first place.

    40/1, maybe.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023
    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 31,045
    edited October 2014

    Classic Kipper thread, this.

    Poll comes out saying EU support is at its highest for 20 years. Result: Mike is accused of a) having a Kleenex moment and b) being fearful over the result. The 56% who support remaining in the EU are accused of being "fantasists"

    The only fantasists are the europhobes on here who think there is any prospect of us leaving.

    Nope. The fantasists are those looking at this poll and missing the most important number.

    14%. The percentage of respondents who will actually get what they want if we do not leave the EU. The ones who want a closer political and economic union. All those other respondents who want a looser relationship within the EU or who want the status quo are living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The realists both on here and in the country at large are those who know what 'ever closer union' actually means and that the only alternative to that is to leave.

    That is the message that BOO need to hammer home as Cameron flounders about trying to prove to us that he has achieved any real concessions.
  • Options
    perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    felix said:

    Agreed - UKIP are focussing minds on the other side but the danger is if the 36% becomes their target score - that'd be enough to break the British system into shreds. The problem is that the 56% Yes doesen't divide helpfully into the other parties - maybe Lab 25%, LDs4% Cons19%, SNP 4% Grn 4%

    That's right, though lots of those 36% won't necessarily see the EU as the decisive issue. and relatively few people do in fact cite the EU as the issue most important to them.

    Immigration rather than the EU is certainly the issue that is pushing more people to UKIP. When I tell constituents that we can't hamper EU immigration without leaving it, they tend to look uncertain rather than say cheerily "OK, let's leave". But that's partly because their concerns relate more to non-EU immigration, and some haven't fully registered (and don't necessarily believe) that we've actually got a points system outside the EU, or they think there must be loads of loopholes because they've seen lots of immigrants.

    Immigration rather than the EU per se is the issue but I believe there's a lot of hostility to immigrants from Eastern Europe particularly the stories of Romanians etc sleeping rough in London as published in The Daily Wail.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023
    edited October 2014
    antifrank said:

    10/1 are not good odds on two elections in 2015. Even if the Parliamentary numbers are chaotic, time is against this. In 1910, the two elections were in January and December. In 1974, the two elections were in February and October.

    In 2015, it looks highly likely that the (first) election will be in May. For a second election in 2015, the government would need to collapse more quickly than any post-election government has collapsed since the 19th century and no new government could be created and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act would need repealing or sidestepping and the new election would need to be held in 2015.

    And, of course, we're assuming that no stable government could be created in the first place.

    40/1, maybe.

    A well argued contribution as ever.

    And right.

    Shadsy will happily take all the 10-1 he can :)
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Douglas Carswell MP retweeted
    Bruno Waterfield @BrunoBrussels · 2h 2 hours ago
    'No compromise,' says @JunckerEU. @David_Cameron cannot be allowed to 'destroy' free movement
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11179862/Jean-Claude-Juncker-issues-migrant-threat-to-Cameron.html

    Jean Claude Junker shows his hermaphrodite face when he tells Cammo to get lost on froo movement and immigration.
    It's either pull out or shut up. Exactly as UKIP has stated. Nothing could be plainer.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Republicanism - a political perspective held by those who would have preferred us to be ruled by President Blair rather than reigned over by Queen Elizabeth II.

    Huzzah for the monarchy!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Mr. K, I agree we should leave. It makes UKIP's approach of damaging a party which could credibly deliver a referendum all the more deranged.
  • Options
    volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Just as public opinion seems to be more in favour of the EU,our PM leads the Tories further and further into the BOOer camp.He seems to be on the wrong side of the curve but it would be nice to know what,apart from being "quite good" at being PM because he was born to rule,Cameron actually believes in.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,737
    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    Patrick said:

    56% Stay In is a little lower than the final result would be, but in the right ballpark.

    The Kippers have given up any pretence of making a serious case and are just turning into a general moan machine, Serious BOOers like Dan Hannan are tearing their hair out.

    Of course the tragedy is that it didn't have to be like this. The time to get this right was before signing Lisbon, but unfortuntely we were lumbered with a Labour government who recklessly or deliberately threw away the opportunity. We are left with Cameron's approach as the best of a bad job.

    Could an incoming PM Farage simply pass a Get The Hell Out Of Dodge Act?

    Nah. He'd be too busy dealing with the rioting and mass civil unrest.

    Which is a terrible indictment of how the centre/ far left view British policies - give us what we want or we'll riot and strike for it.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Shots fired near Canadian Parliament - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29724907
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    If they have another Eurozone "moment", which seems possible, and we have another period of economic stagnation as a consequence, the numbers will turn again.

    There's probably an element of anti-UKIP feeling driving certain stickers at the present time too.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,105
    edited October 2014
    antifrank said:

    10/1 are not good odds on two elections in 2015. Even if the Parliamentary numbers are chaotic, time is against this. In 1910, the two elections were in January and December. In 1974, the two elections were in February and October.

    In 2015, it looks highly likely that the (first) election will be in May. For a second election in 2015, the government would need to collapse more quickly than any post-election government has collapsed since the 19th century and no new government could be created and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act would need repealing or sidestepping and the new election would need to be held in 2015.

    And, of course, we're assuming that no stable government could be created in the first place.

    40/1, maybe.

    As we’ve seen with the LD’s, power concentrates the mind. Most politicians would rather be on the Government side than not.

    Incidentally, does anyone else wonder if the LD leadership is going to (try and) spring some sort of major surprise sometime in Jan/Feb which will get them a massive and favourable publicity, and consequently polling boost?
    Surely to god they’ve got to do SOMETHING? It’s like the Charge of the Light Brigate at the moment. Very slowly, of course!
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    taffys said:

    The Kippers have given up any pretence of making a serious case and are just turning into a general moan machine.

    Should this be the tories' main line of attack?

    Is the Conservatives "Vote UKIP, get Labour" a 'serious case' for voting Conservative?
  • Options
    MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    MikeK said:

    Douglas Carswell MP retweeted
    Bruno Waterfield @BrunoBrussels · 2h 2 hours ago
    'No compromise,' says @JunckerEU. @David_Cameron cannot be allowed to 'destroy' free movement
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11179862/Jean-Claude-Juncker-issues-migrant-threat-to-Cameron.html

    Jean Claude Junker shows his hermaphrodite face when he tells Cammo to get lost on froo movement and immigration.
    It's either pull out or shut up. Exactly as UKIP has stated. Nothing could be plainer.


    Then Juncker is an idiot who has just backed himself into a corner.

    However, we'll see where he goes when the Germans want some changes too.

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033
    edited October 2014
    Ishmael_X said:

    TGOHF said:

    Dan Hodges right on cue..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nigel-farage/11179456/Of-course-Ukip-wont-condemn-its-racist-new-partners-because-Ukip-is-the-cult-of-Nigel-Farage.html

    "There has been talk in recent weeks about tensions between Farage and the more socially liberal Carswell. How their very differing visions of how Ukip should reach beyond its base could produce splits within the party.

    There will be no splits. And that’s because Carswell’s vision is his, and his alone. Ukip are not a party of libertarians. They are a party of worshippers. They worship at the Shrine of Farage. He is the way, the truth and the light.

    Nigel says Putin is someone he admires, so the message boards fill up with Ukip supporters expressing admiration for Putin. Nigel says Robert Iwaszkiewicz was just having a bit of a laugh when he said beating women “helps bring wives back to earth”; Twitter comes alive with Ukip supporters explaining how Robert Iwaszkiewicz’s views are being traduced by Ukip’s opponents. Nigel announces a “Wag tax”; Ukip members applaud. Two days later he announces he’s scrapping his “Wag tax”; they applaud again."

    Ukip is more than the people who post on the message boards who are, admittedly, mainly nutters. They aren't all of the voters Ukip are getting in the polls.

    I imagine Hodges is diversifying his portfolio of hate figures to dilute any ed-related embarrassment after the GE.

    The truth, which may go over the heads of those so opposed to UKIP that they would rather agree with PC, lefty wonks than think for themselves, (If Lord Freud was a kipper, I am confident the Conservatives on here would have condemned him) is that the "tensions" between Farage and Carswell are inventions of those that dislike UKIP.. any evidence??

    I was standing 5 yards away from Carswell in the UKIP drink up after he won Clacton and heard him praise Farage to the skies, saying he had no idea of the smears and lies he must have put up for 20 years with until he joined UKIP... he has also been in the Commons and on TV this week attacking Cameron and the Tories in quite an aggressive manner

    Similarly the "WAG tax".. disregarding the error that Farage announced it when he didnt, who stuck up for it? Who applauded it? I don't remember anyone

    Whilst a popular leader is always going to be praised/defended, this isn't unique to UKIP.. I don't see many Tories on here failing to defend Cameron, let alone criticising him for his many changes of policy when the wind blows/depending on what the polls say
  • Options
    chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    shadsy said:

    Had a few requests for a price on there being 2 elections next year. So we're offering 10/1. Here are some thoughts http://t.co/X2e6aDe3qK

    Thanks for that, Mr. Shadsy, an interesting piece. I think Steve Richards is wrong to say that an early election can only happen if two-thirds of MPs vote for it - a vote of no confidence can do the job, can it not In which case the next time I go into town I will pop into one of your shops and have a small piece of that 10/1 offering.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
  • Options
    manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    [YAWN] I'm surprised the Website hasn't changed its name to www.ukiptrashing.com because the lack of variety is becoming rather tedious. Still its a private site and its the owners choice

    Shame the poll is worth nought except for giving the usual suspects a cheap thrill (and clearly they need one). Dave should have called that referendum when he had the chance to and before QMV really kicks in and Brussels really begins to focus on Ever Closer Union. Using it as some tawdry device to get Eurosceptics to vote for his Europhile Party was always going to be an abject failure because those who care won't fall for such blatant deceit and the rest don't care. He'll be gone come 2015.

    Looking at the poll and knowing where the EU is going the most important figure for me is that only 14% want ever closer Union. Only 14% want what the EU plan to do. With those sort of figures eventual withdrawal is inevitable. It is only a matter of time. Is it even worth having a referendum down the line with figures like that?

    So all those whipping themselves up into a frothy fervour over this poll need to calm down because there is no referendum this Parliament. Prime Minister Miliband will not countenance one next Parliament and by then we should have a clear idea of what is in store for the UK knowing that on the basis of this poll only 14% of the population want what Brussels wants to offer.

    Chillax (that word is so annoying) kippers the future is bright..........
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    weejonnie said:

    Patrick said:

    56% Stay In is a little lower than the final result would be, but in the right ballpark.

    The Kippers have given up any pretence of making a serious case and are just turning into a general moan machine, Serious BOOers like Dan Hannan are tearing their hair out.

    Of course the tragedy is that it didn't have to be like this. The time to get this right was before signing Lisbon, but unfortuntely we were lumbered with a Labour government who recklessly or deliberately threw away the opportunity. We are left with Cameron's approach as the best of a bad job.

    Could an incoming PM Farage simply pass a Get The Hell Out Of Dodge Act?

    Nah. He'd be too busy dealing with the rioting and mass civil unrest.

    Which is a terrible indictment of how the centre/ far left view British policies - give us what we want or we'll riot and strike for it.
    Quite. But that's exactly what would happen. Look to the furore surrounding the Poll Tax for further reference.
  • Options
    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

  • Options
    ItajaiItajai Posts: 721

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Republicanism - a political perspective held by those who would have preferred us to be ruled by President Blair rather than reigned over by Queen Elizabeth II.

    Huzzah for the monarchy!


    Only if we wanted an executive style Presidente.
    There are many types of presidential systems.
  • Options
    SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,737
    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.
    Just basing my comment on the poll showing the 20% lead for 'Stay In', what's yours based on?
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274

    shadsy said:

    Had a few requests for a price on there being 2 elections next year. So we're offering 10/1. Here are some thoughts http://t.co/X2e6aDe3qK

    Thanks for that, Mr. Shadsy, an interesting piece. I think Steve Richards is wrong to say that an early election can only happen if two-thirds of MPs vote for it - a vote of no confidence can do the job, can it not In which case the next time I go into town I will pop into one of your shops and have a small piece of that 10/1 offering.
    A one line bill to repeal the fixed term act would also do the trick. This should be done in any case.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    UKIP isn't about Europe. It's about people who read stories about FGM and modern slavery and reflect in desperation at how different and frightening all this is to the country they were born into.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023
    Patrick said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Charles is definitely going to reign as George not Charles? Seems a bit funky - but hey!
    I'd have thought so.
    Albert Frederick Arthur George =George VI.

    Charles Philip Arthur George = George VII
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Mr. K, I agree we should leave. It makes UKIP's approach of damaging a party which could credibly deliver a referendum all the more deranged.

    So sorry Morris, no one with any sense trusts Cameron to keep any promise he makes. From little things like Pasties, to great things like Defence and Europe he has proved an inveterate, lubricious, liar.
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited October 2014

    antifrank said:

    10/1 are not good odds on two elections in 2015. Even if the Parliamentary numbers are chaotic, time is against this. In 1910, the two elections were in January and December. In 1974, the two elections were in February and October.

    In 2015, it looks highly likely that the (first) election will be in May. For a second election in 2015, the government would need to collapse more quickly than any post-election government has collapsed since the 19th century and no new government could be created and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act would need repealing or sidestepping and the new election would need to be held in 2015.

    And, of course, we're assuming that no stable government could be created in the first place.

    40/1, maybe.

    As we’ve seen with the LD’s, power concentrates the mind. Most politicians would rather be on the Government side than not.

    Incidentally, does anyone else wonder if the LD leadership is going to (try and) spring some sort of major surprise sometime in Jan/Feb which will get them a massive and favourable publicity, and consequently polling boost?
    Surely to god they’ve got to do SOMETHING? It’s like the Charge of the Light Brigate at the moment. Very slowly, of course!
    Wouldn't they have displayed all their wares in the recent conference season? Small boost for the Conservatives, no boost for Labour, or LDs.
  • Options
    manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited October 2014
    Off topic for those knowledgeable in the Internet craft is it possible for actual websites (and indeed real world institutions) to become Internet 'trolls' and if so are they called trolls or is there another name for them?

  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    taffys said:

    UKIP isn't about Europe. It's about people who read stories about FGM and modern slavery and reflect in desperation at how different and frightening all this is to the country they were born into.

    You wouldn't entertain that your views on people who support UKIP might be a tad sweeping? Maybe even stereotypical based on your own prejudices, hmmm?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    MikeK said:

    Douglas Carswell MP retweeted
    Bruno Waterfield @BrunoBrussels · 2h 2 hours ago
    'No compromise,' says @JunckerEU. @David_Cameron cannot be allowed to 'destroy' free movement
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11179862/Jean-Claude-Juncker-issues-migrant-threat-to-Cameron.html

    Jean Claude Junker shows his hermaphrodite face when he tells Cammo to get lost on froo movement and immigration.
    It's either pull out or shut up. Exactly as UKIP has stated. Nothing could be plainer.

    Then Juncker is an idiot who has just backed himself into a corner.

    However, we'll see where he goes when the Germans want some changes too.
    Who sez that Germany wants changes? Merkel loves everything as it is.
  • Options
    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?

    Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?

    Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,023
    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
  • Options
    taffys said:

    UKIP isn't about Europe. It's about people who read stories about FGM and modern slavery and reflect in desperation at how different and frightening all this is to the country they were born into.

    And they wonder why Kippers treat Tory claims that they will return to the Tory fold with contempt.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,465
    edited October 2014
    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
    Whether he's been bounced into it or not he is the only one who is in a position to deliver it.

    If you are playing the long game so that the Cons will lose in 2015 and appoint a righter winger and then he will amend the current Cons policy to one of definitely out and then...and then...

    well if that's your game not only are your views quite convoluted with no small amount of contingent risk, but more to the point, you will lose the election after that for the Cons also.

    A right wing leader, alienating the "middle" and promising to take the UK out of the EU will ensure the Cons are out of power for decades.

    If it's the longer run game you're playing, of making UKIP a proper political force in 20 years time, well you know what happens in the long(er) run...
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Time for titillation:

    @drapermark37 yeppers... pic.twitter.com/gJPjLbRJJV

    — NOTthatTom Green (@tomgreen1959) October 22, 2014
  • Options
    anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.
    Just basing my comment on the poll showing the 20% lead for 'Stay In', what's yours based on?
    More than one poll?

    A series of polls showing an evenly divided public.

    The knowledge that the 'out' argument won the only two national debates on the EU.
  • Options
    Pulpstar
    Well exactly. I was being sarcastic.

    It would be a pointless, expensive exercise.

    Just like a referendum on the EU.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.

    If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?

    UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.

    Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.

    At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    TOPPING said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
    Whether he's been bounced into it or not he is the only one who is in a position to deliver it.

    If you are playing the long game so that the Cons will lose in 2015 and appoint a righter winger and then he will amend the current Cons policy to one of definitely out and then...and then...

    well if that's your game not only are your views quite convoluted with no small amount of contingent risk, but more to the point, you will lose the election after that for the Cons also.

    A right wing leader, alienating the "middle" and promising to take the UK out of the EU will ensure the Cons are out of power for decades.

    If it's the longer run game you're playing, of making UKIP a proper political force in 20 years time, well you know what happens in the long(er) run...
    Half the Kippers will be dead and buried in 20 years.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
  • Options
    taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited October 2014
    Maybe even stereotypical based on your own prejudices, hmmm?

    No.

    I'm just trying to figure otr why UKIP is so popular at the same time as the EU popularity is at a 23-year high.

    The conclusion is that the UKIP supporters aren;t really that bothered about immigration from Europe. They are far more concerned about immigration from countries where islam predominates.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
    Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    F1: Sam Michael leaves McLaren:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29723594
  • Options
    Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I thought he had a wider choice than his baptismal names; but I can't find any examples among former monarchs.

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,669
    edited October 2014

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
    He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.

    I give you King Mohammed I.
  • Options
    OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Off topic for those knowledgeable in the Internet craft is it possible for actual websites (and indeed real world institutions) to become Internet 'trolls' and if so are they called trolls or is there another name for them?

    If pb.com was actually trollish, rather than something that irked you in particular rather than people in general, then what would happen is that most of the people who currently use the site would find a better place to discuss politics and/or betting. And pb.com would be an abandoned wasteland with the blog owner talking to themselves and a tiny circle of sycophants.

    A troll is someone who comes in to a popular place and tries to draw all attention to them by being needlessly offensive.

    The description you are looking for is perhaps "provocative, interesting and thought-provoking".
  • Options
    I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?

    A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.

    Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?

    Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,062

    F1: Sam Michael leaves McLaren:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29723594

    Love the speculation about Alonso on there. The question is does Mclaren and Honda really want Alonso or are they just playing with him before re-signing Button. The problem is that its the main F1 story at the moment and there is no actual news to discuss...
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,737

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
    He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.

    I give you King Mohammed I.
    About time we had a Henry?
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?

    A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.

    Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?

    Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this

    I think a more plausible explanation is that Kipper HQ (Nigel's head) realised how naff and awful it was ..
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
  • Options
    PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,274
    edited October 2014
    TOPPING said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.
    Whether he's been bounced into it or not he is the only one who is in a position to deliver it.

    If you are playing the long game so that the Cons will lose in 2015 and appoint a righter winger and then he will amend the current Cons policy to one of definitely out and then...and then...

    well if that's your game not only are your views quite convoluted with no small amount of contingent risk, but more to the point, you will lose the election after that for the Cons also.

    A right wing leader, alienating the "middle" and promising to take the UK out of the EU will ensure the Cons are out of power for decades.

    If it's the longer run game you're playing, of making UKIP a proper political force in 20 years time, well you know what happens in the long(er) run...
    You are absolutely right. Political credibility is very long and hard earned in opposition. Foot, Kinnock, Hague, IDS, Howard represent many years of frustration and failure for their respective parties. If an electorally credible and popular anti-EU potential Tory leader was waiting in the wings to sweep the party to power in 2020 after only one term in opposition, that person would be visible now. It wouldn't be Boris. Such a leader almost certainly does not exist.

    Like it or not all this does make the UKIP attitude nothing but destructive and counter-productive.

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?

    Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?

    Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?

    The arrogance of the well off kippers wishing 5 years of economic pain Labour style on the rest of us just to advance their party is startling - and the main reason I would never even tactically vote for them.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Mr. Eagles, that's only true if you count all the many spellings of Mohammed as being of the same name rather than different ones.

    I prefer King Arthur.

    Mr. Eek, I suspect they do want Alonso. It depends on what Mercedes do with Hamilton (Alonso could take a year out and return, but right now most people think he'll go to McLaren).
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
    He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.

    I give you King Mohammed I.
    About time we had a Henry?
    Yup or how about being out of the box and King Longshanks the First
  • Options
    TGOHF said:

    I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?

    A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.

    Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?

    Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this

    I think a more plausible explanation is that Kipper HQ (Nigel's head) realised how naff and awful it was ..
    I thought Nigel Farage said he hoped to get it to number 1!! you sort of expect the PC brigade on the left to be sour faced about it but I gather Nigel Evans from the Tories has taken offence as well FGS
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: More people think the Conservatives are competent & have best policies than any other party: ComRes for @itvnews http://t.co/hXlZ3L4wMB

    @JohnRentoul: UKIP now the nastiest party: ComRes for ITVNews http://t.co/0FTyrqQrOe
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    The description you are looking for is perhaps "provocative, interesting and thought-provoking".

    I think popular is the missing word
  • Options
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
    taxpayer money was spent on the AV referendum at the Lib Dem insistence
  • Options

    Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.

    If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?

    UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.

    Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.

    At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.

    Mr Dancer,

    UKIP would have a referendum in months. If a referendum is so important to national interests then why doesn't Dave attempt to force on through before the general election? Why did he instead use a cheap Brownite triangulation trick of timing it for 2017 effectively attempting to extort the votes of those who generally oppose his party just to get a referendum. If that wasn't a clear case of putting party before country what is?




  • Options

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
    taxpayer money was spent on the AV referendum at the Lib Dem insistence
    and I wager that the result of a EU vote would be closer that that was
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
    Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
    Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?

    That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
    He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.

    I give you King Mohammed I.
    About time we had a Henry?
    I am sorry but my tendancy to be a bit Aspergers about these things means that I would actually get a bit frustrated if he was anything other than King Charles
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Mr. 2014, they 'would' but they aren't going to win and are likely to stop the Conservatives winning either, helping the pro-EU cause.

    Cameron doesn't try to force one through now for two reasons:
    1) it explicitly was not in the 2010 manifesto [the media tried to cause a splitstorm by banging on about that at a pre-election Conservative conference]
    2) it is not in the Coalition Agreement and he does not have a majority
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
    He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.

    I give you King Mohammed I.
    Mohammed 23rd, Muhammad 15th, Mohammad 57th, do they all count?

    King Oliver would be following the latest trend

    http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/15/top-100-most-popular-baby-names-in-england-and-wales-released-where-is-your-name-on-the-list-4833888/
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033

    Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?

    Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?

    Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?

    Doesn't the polling say roughly 50% of Kippers who expressed a preference said Miliband?

    It seems rather obvious to me that people who say they aren't voting for the Conservative party after they did so and got Cameron as PM, don't feel happy with Cameron as PM
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Mr. K, as a chap with at least some sense I must dispute that.

    If Cameron were in a position (ie had enough seats) to offer a referendum after winning in 2015, and did not, the Conservative Party would axe him. He did not want the AV or Scottish votes, but allowed them to go ahead. Why would a third referendum (the only one of the three which would have been in his own manifesto) suddenly cause him to renege?

    UKIP is putting party before their country by deliberately going after the party which could deliver us a vote, increasing the prospect of a disastrous and pro-EU Miliband government.

    Of course, if we end up with a large Conservative Party and some UKIP MPs I'd be more than happy if they could agree to set up a referendum. My suspicion is that UKIP will have a strong electoral result, but that will take far more from the Conservatives than anyone else and enable Labour to get a small majority.

    At which point UKIP will celebrate historic Parliamentary success, and having denied the country a vote for at least five years and probably more as the right either splits fully or reunifies, and Labour enjoys a reverse 1980s situation.

    I beg to differ with you regarding Cameron. Everything to do with him is tainted and sleazy.

    It's because I love Britain and want the country to advance, that I will vote UKIP for change. By voting for the Lab/Lib/Con, you are voting for the status quo and the continued decline, relative to others, of our Island nation.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,465
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
    Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
    Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?

    That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
    Main Street is still furious with Wall Street.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,652
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11179073/Buy-to-let-boom-one-in-five-homes-now-owned-by-landlords.html

    Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    MaxPB said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11179073/Buy-to-let-boom-one-in-five-homes-now-owned-by-landlords.html

    Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.

    Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Line after Liz is:

    George VII -> William V -> George VIII

    Source?

    I'd be worried about "The Madness of King George" gags if I were Charles (or at least if I were one of his advisers)

    Charles doesn't have a great history amongst english kings,
    Philip isn't an English King's name
    King Arthur would just seem odd.

    So he's left with King George.
    I don't know, we have only two Charles's, the second one didn't do too badly. So a fifty percent strike rate is OK and compares reasonably favourably with the Georges. The name to avoid is Richard, of the three two were killed in combat and one was deposed.
    He should reflect his subjects and choose the most popular boys name as his Regnal name.

    I give you King Mohammed I.
    Mohammed 23rd, Muhammad 15th, Mohammad 57th, do they all count?

    King Oliver would be following the latest trend

    http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/15/top-100-most-popular-baby-names-in-england-and-wales-released-where-is-your-name-on-the-list-4833888/
    They all count.
  • Options

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    What you are actually saying is that Farage has had a proper job, one which he had to be good at or face the tin tack.

    As opposed to the career politicians, public body heads, councillors, charity commissioners, civil servants, and so on who have never faced the pressure of having to make a profit while they go from one quango to the next.

    I think it's widely accepted that Joyce Thacker is an absolutely disgusting disgrace of a woman who was so wrapped up in political dogma that she was terrible at her job, as the 1,400 victims will testify, yet she has just left her role with a £44,000 payoff.

    Don't even get me started on the likes of Thomson and Entwistle.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033

    I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?

    A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.

    Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?

    Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this

    You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
    We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.

  • Options
    BenSBenS Posts: 22
    Re the discussion below about the real of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, Mark D'Arcy (the BBC correspondent for Today in Parliament) think whoever gets in next year will try to repeal it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29605766
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,019
    Mr. K, voting to get rid of Balls is a vote for a better tomorrow.
  • Options
    TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited October 2014
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
    Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
    Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?

    That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
    Because to the majority of the populace, anyone working in The City is considered a member of the 'elite'. In the same way that everyone employed in banking and finance is lumped in with the 'evil ones who wrecked the economy'.
  • Options
    JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    isam said:

    Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?

    Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?

    Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?

    Doesn't the polling say roughly 50% of Kippers who expressed a preference said Miliband?

    It seems rather obvious to me that people who say they aren't voting for the Conservative party after they did so and got Cameron as PM, don't feel happy with Cameron as PM
    Any idea what % didn't express a preference?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,465
    edited October 2014

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
    We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.

    MIke with that attitude: shouldn't have elections...disgrace...don't live in a democracy...should have been rectified years ago...

    I think I have the perfect party for you to switch allegiances to.
  • Options
    HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    @Morris_Dancer

    "I prefer King Arthur"

    Despite Mr. Pulpstar's misgivings about the name it is worth remembering that, but for a freak accident involving some bacteria and a dodgy immune system, we would have had King Arthur I in 1509. The man who became Henry VIII was the spare heir it was his elder brother, Arthur was on the slate for the top job until some illness caught from the Welsh killed him.

    Who knows where we would be now if Arthur had survived or his wife, Catherine of Aragon, had also died.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29719191

    Swedish navy: 'We hate the fact something is in our waters'

    Is Sweden having a nervous breakdown?
  • Options

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
    We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.

    So how do you regard the EU then? Who voted for Barruso? Or Ashton? Or Van Rumpuy?

    Double standards as always.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,652
    TGOHF said:

    MaxPB said:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/buy-to-let/11179073/Buy-to-let-boom-one-in-five-homes-now-owned-by-landlords.html

    Labour could easily win millions of votes from "generation rent" if they go after private land lords. A land value tax on rented properties with a 20 year exemption for new builds. If either Labour or the Tories do it then they can win a lot of votes at the expense of bastard landlords.

    Confiscation of property would be a real vote winner in Labour heartlands - they should definitely go for this..
    Voters like you and policies that you support is the prime reason the Tories are going to lose in 2015. If the Tories can't attract voters like me then they are doomed to fail. Moderately right wing, young and urban. I don't want to vote Labour or UKIP, the Lib Dems are not even in the frame but the Tories are doing absolutely nothing but not being Labour to try and win my vote. A land value tax on second properties is not an unreasonable proposition and here you are trying to paint it as a confiscation of property and rights. This is why the Tories fail, because of members like you.
  • Options

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
    Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
    Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?

    That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
    Because to the majority of the populace, anyone working in The City is considered a member of the 'elite'. In the same way that everyone employed in banking and finance is lumped in with the 'evil ones who wrecked the economy'.
    Have you ever met anyone who works in the City? Very often they have brothers who run a market stall down Roman Road, same thing just bigger numbers.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Socrates said:

    chestnut said:

    UKIP's unintended consequences. The better they do the less Britain wants to leave the EU.

    Do people really know the consequences, either good or bad?

    If this was put through a Scottish style referendum, it would be a close call; that's why the elite don't want a referendum.

    Who do you define as the elite? I am not sure that you can get more elite than the Conservative Prime Minister, and he wants a referendum.

    No, he doesn't. He's just been bounced into it.

    Fair enough.

    But then Farage is part of the elite, isn't he? A public school educated, former City trader now on the Euro gravy train. He wants a referendum.

    I don't get how "City trader" equals "part of the elite"... I know dozens of City traders and they are normal people from a working class background that happened to live 30-45 mins away from London.
    Farage isn't from a normal working class background. He had an extremely privileged upbringing relative to most; he's from the elite.
    Personally I don't have a problem with people's educational background, whether its good or bad... but even if you do like to categorise people so, and private schooling is something to be ashamed of, why include the "city trader" part?

    That was actually the part I was questioning, if it needed to be pointed out
    Because to the majority of the populace, anyone working in The City is considered a member of the 'elite'. In the same way that everyone employed in banking and finance is lumped in with the 'evil ones who wrecked the economy'.
    So because the majority of the populace (assuming this is the case) wrongly consider anyone who works as a trader in the city to be part of the elite, you argue as if it is true to make a partisan point?

  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    isam said:

    I see the Calypso number that UKIP did is being withdrawn from sale?

    A pity and rather worrying reaction to it. Of course its a bit immature,naff and not very good (some would say it is therefore perfect for UKIP) but I find the accusations from fairly mainstream politicians that it is racist or at least 'distasteful' as being ridiculous.

    Are white people banned from doing a Calypso then? What other accent can you do if you sing one without looking a right prat.?

    Is this country fast becoming too easily offended and taking itself too seriously ? Maybe UKIP are right about this

    You are 100% correct... but its what the Cameroon's/Ummana's on here want
    Incorrect - it should be played night and day from now until the election - it's absolute gold.
  • Options
    state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,423
    edited October 2014
    MikeK said:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29719191

    Swedish navy: 'We hate the fact something is in our waters'

    Is Sweden having a nervous breakdown?

    Keeps their hand in doesn't it? It's not as if they have done much ,even neutral in WW2

    Great headline - the hunt for Reds in October!!
  • Options

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    We still need a referendum. That is the battleground. The result is moot.

    What is Ed's view @_Bobajob_‌ ? Still not trusting the Great British People?

    Why spend money on a totally needless referendum when we all know that Brits always vote for the status quo.

    Use the money to shorten cancer diagnosis times.

    Because we live in a democracy

    Politicians are not our masters. They are our appointed representatives. And there are times when they should seek the views of the electorate.
    We don't live in a democracy while members of the upper house are appointed not elected. That's a disgrace which should have been rectified years ago.

    Classic Smithson tactic. When you are losing an argument play a squirrel card. Answer the point at hand don't try distracting the argument. We all know that as a fanatical Europhile you are desperate for any possible chance of the UK leaving the EU to be derailed. It comes as no surprise at all to find that you would like to see a referendum scrapped.

    I have no doubt that if a truly Eurosceptic government were elected and wanted us to leave without a referendum you would be screaming the place down.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,033

    isam said:

    Do Kippers really want PM Miliband, Chancellor Balls and no referendum until some time after 2020?

    Do they honestly believe that there's ZERO difference between the outcomes of five years of Labour and five years of Conservative governance?

    Of course they'll say so now, but in the polling booth?

    Doesn't the polling say roughly 50% of Kippers who expressed a preference said Miliband?

    It seems rather obvious to me that people who say they aren't voting for the Conservative party after they did so and got Cameron as PM, don't feel happy with Cameron as PM
    Any idea what % didn't express a preference?
    it was an Ashcroft poll quite recently, I don't remember exactly when, but the gist was that people who intended to vote UKIP didn't seem to care whether Cameron or Miliband was PM post 2015
This discussion has been closed.