politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The media narrative turns against the purples as the prospe

taffys said:

Once this feeds through to more general food prices then inflation could be sub 1% if not negative - who will be the first to call that out as a bad thing ?

Not just food. Anything that needs transportation. Airlines etc.

Are we getting close to the delicious position where Ed's fuel price freeze will actually make the energy companies richer...??

'I'm calling it the Miliband put....'

TGOHF said:

Charles said:

TGOHF said:

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Patrick said:

An excellent DT article about education reform:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11288932/The-Blob-gobbled-up-Michael-Gove-now-its-coming-for-David-Cameron.html

If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.

Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.

I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...

I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.

Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.

Needs biggest reform * Most important = Gove's job.

Education or Welfare, I think.

Perhaps some overarching civil service role - plenty of scope for "cuts" - look at the DoE payroll - down substantially.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20324346

About 1,000 jobs at the Department for Education (DfE) - a quarter of its total workforce - are being cut in an efficiency drive.

Civil servants losing their jobs will be made redundant within two years, as the DfE focuses on priority work.

The DfE was making administrative cuts of 42% by 2014-15 - but following a review ordered in June, the cuts have been raised to 50% (£290m) by 2015-16.

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@The Watcher

But neither Bolter nor Hamilton were selected, so the system worked.

Other Parties have not always been successful in stopping unsuitable types from becoming candidates, despite greater experience and resources. You can probably think of as many unfortunate examples as me.

In alphetical order, we can start with Archer and Aitken. How many do you think we'll have by the time we get to Z?

Great answer

It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what

Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal

Let me get that straight ISAM, as a potential UKIP parliamentary candidate, you are saying that Neil Hamilton (deputy leader of UKIP according to Wikipedia) is and unsuitable Westminster candidate?
PS I liked "missing the pint (sic) completely"

Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.

You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,

I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable

OblitusSumMe said:

I simply do not understand why UKIP ever gave Neil Hamilton the time of day. Surely if one person became synonymous with the "Tory sleaze" media narrative of the late 90s it was he.

Can anyone explain it?

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

@Logical_Song

"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."

It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.

However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.

As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).

The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).

The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.

Flightpath said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@The Watcher

But neither Bolter nor Hamilton were selected, so the system worked.

Other Parties have not always been successful in stopping unsuitable types from becoming candidates, despite greater experience and resources. You can probably think of as many unfortunate examples as me.

In alphetical order, we can start with Archer and Aitken. How many do you think we'll have by the time we get to Z?

Great answer

It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what

Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal

Let me get that straight ISAM, as a potential UKIP parliamentary candidate, you are saying that Neil Hamilton (deputy leader of UKIP according to Wikipedia) is and unsuitable Westminster candidate?
PS I liked "missing the pint (sic) completely"

Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.

You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,

I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable

You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton.
Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.

It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.

SouthamObserver said:

We already know that right wing Tories like an argument. So it's no surprise that there are plenty inside UKIP.

TheWatcher said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dirty Desmond to donate 300k to UKIP.

Chasing the dream of sitting as a Kipper in the HoL perhaps?

MikeK said:

Thanks to all you well wishers. I'm going to take it easy for a couple of weeks and then hope to be fighting fit for the all the excitement of the election battle. It will be an arduous 4 months for all of us, no matter which party is supported.

If the kippers do well, i,e, more than 20 seats. Then its a round of drinks on me at the next DD or wherever we may gather.

Charles said:

TGOHF said:

Charles said:

TGOHF said:

Charles said:

Indigo said:

Patrick said:

An excellent DT article about education reform:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/11288932/The-Blob-gobbled-up-Michael-Gove-now-its-coming-for-David-Cameron.html

If this country is to make way in a very very competitive world in the future we absolutely need to ensure we have a genuinely well educated workforce. The educational establishment is dead against this. Defeating the Blob is a matter of national importance. Really. The Blob poses a greater risk to our national future than terrorism.

Since Gove was replaced by Nicky "We need to promote tolerance of beliefs and ideas even if we strongly disapprove of them." Morgan the conservatives have given up on education. Gove it seems was too ambitious for British children, he didn't understand that the education system was there to be run for the benefit of teachers.

I wouldn't be surprised - assuming that the Tories are in government in some form after the election - if Gove gets his job back...

I think the reshuffle was to reduce the salience of the issue ahead of the GE.

Which department needs the biggest reform - that's the one Gove will get. I think Hunt will continue at Health - he seems to have done a much better job than some predicted.

Needs biggest reform * Most important = Gove's job.

Education or Welfare, I think.

Perhaps some overarching civil service role - plenty of scope for "cuts" - look at the DoE payroll - down substantially.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20324346

About 1,000 jobs at the Department for Education (DfE) - a quarter of its total workforce - are being cut in an efficiency drive.

Civil servants losing their jobs will be made redundant within two years, as the DfE focuses on priority work.

The DfE was making administrative cuts of 42% by 2014-15 - but following a review ordered in June, the cuts have been raised to 50% (£290m) by 2015-16.

Although Maude does a reasonable job at that & I think Gove would be wasted there

OldKingCole said:

Just seen petrol at £115.9 at Sainsburys. Usually the second cheapest locally too.

isam said:

At the time she was supposedly a Labour activist in Tower Hamlets, and boasted of being taken to £700 dinners by men from the party...

Richard_Nabavi said:

On topic: Reading the comments, it seems to me that many PBers, including some of our most distinguished ones, are slightly missing the point regarding the various shenanigans with which UKIP have been entertaining us over the past couple of weeks.

Yes, it is true that voters won't care a fig about Ms Bolter or alleged 'dirty tricks' in candidate selection, if they even notice at all. And yes, it is true that a hostile 'media narrative' is not going to damage UKIP. And yes, it is true that no-one cares a fig what their policies are, since no-one is considering voting for them on the basis of policy.

However, that doesn't mean that what has been going on in UKIP doesn't matter, and doesn't affect its electoral chances and longer-term future. The key point about the glimpses we have been given into chaos, splits and tantrums within UKIP is that they relate to two huge structural weaknesses in the party. The first is that the party has attracted, and includes at the highest level, a range of opportunists and chancers, some of them really quite disreputable, as well as a range of principled mavericks, who are not necessarily team players. Some of those are retreads from previous failed political careers. The result is likely to be a continuing circus of splits, tantrums, flounce-outs and scandals; these may not directly deter people from voting UKIP, but they will disrupt the party's work and ultimately make electoral success harder.

The second point, and an even more significant one in the medium term, is that the internal tensions we are seeing are not just about personalities, scandals and candidate quality; they are tensions which relate to the huge internal contradictions of UKIP. Lots of people have jumped on the bandwagon, but they want to drive the bandwagon in lots of different directions. This is not unusual in a minor protest party - the LibDems managed to point in a range of contradictory directions very successfully until 2010 - but in the case of UKIP it seems to be particularly acute. This is probably because UKIP doesn't have the comprehensive if cumbersome party democratic structures which the LibDems developed over a period of years, but instead is run as a Farage fiefdom.

All the seeds of trouble through internal turmoil are in place; the only question is the timescale.

antifrank said:

Do you see any of this having any impact before May? I don't.

Neil said:

The bit I found interesting about the FT article was that UKIP only had between £70,000 and £80,000 in the bank. Ok that's better than having outstanding loans but with their membership surge I would have thought the finances would be in better shape than that. Their outgoings must be very high.

foxinsoxuk said:

HurstLlama said:

@Logical_Song

"Cameron in favour of unilateral disarmament, doesn't make any sense at all."

It does in the context that Mr. Beds puts forward, i.e. Cameron being Conservative Leader in 1974. If Cameron were to have been trying his "move to the centre, detoxification" strategy in those days that is just the sort of policy that he would have been coming up with.

However, the premise is based on the fact that Cameron will say anything, do anything for votes and we know that is not true. He is in fact a man of cast iron principles who would never behave in a way that was different from his words and would never indulge in stunts designed to show him in a "good" light.

As opposition leader, for example, he was prepared to lead by example when it came to saving the planet by using less petrol - he cycled to work. Well, OK, he did it once when the cameras were around and his driver was following on behind with his nice work shoes and his brief case, but it showed just how much he believed in what he was saying (at the time).

The counterfactual is nonsense. There was no need to move to the centre in the mid Seventies (indeed the political centre was very crowded then as now, with Miliband as Wilson without the election winning charm).

The need to move to a more socially liberal and centrist position arose from the successive Tory defeats with right wing platforms in 2001 and 2005. There are still many who prefer the purity of opposition to the petty compromises of government, those people may well make the Tories unelectable again if Cameron does not win next May.

isam said:

I am sure you put a lot of thought into that Richard, and it will be as lavishly praised as your thoughtful piece on why the Tories would win Rochester by anywhere from 3-12%

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

I am sure you put a lot of thought into that Richard, and it will be as lavishly praised as your thoughtful piece on why the Tories would win Rochester by anywhere from 3-12%

A low blow, isam!

Still, remind me, how far out were you in the final prediction? And how far out was I?

BenM said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Latest Populus VI: Lab 35 (-1), Con 34 (+1), LD 9 (+1), UKIP 14 (-1), Oth 7 (-1). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi141212

Con gasp and wheeze to 34% again before inevitably falling back next week.

isam said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

?

Great answer

It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what

Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal

Let me get that straight ISAM, as a potential UKIP parliamentary candidate, you are saying that Neil Hamilton (deputy leader of UKIP according to Wikipedia) is and unsuitable Westminster candidate?
PS I liked "missing the pint (sic) completely"

Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.

You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,

I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable

You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton.
Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.

It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.

Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter

I take about as much notice of your incoherent ramblings as I do German 3rd division handball results, so I wouldn't waste your time if I were you

saddened said:

For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.

edmundintokyo said:

saddened said:

For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.

That may be good advice but I hope that:
1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere.
2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.

saddened said:

isam said:

Flightpath said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

?

Great answer

It says it all doesn't it? People on PB will criticise Ukip for anything, no matter what

Ukip prevents two unsuitable people making the candidate list... And people say 'what happened to the great vetting system?" thinking they've made a killer point, despite missing the pint completely. Unreal

Oops sorry for the typing error... was on the phone. Poor editing on my part.

You've done the same with "and" meaning "an" I presume,

I don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton... before this week I wouldn't have been able to tell you why he stopped being an MP in the first place. But it seems that two constituencies, (Boston & Skegness and S Bas & E Thurrock) found him unsuitable

You are not much of a commentator or a good political judge if you don't really know anything about Neil Hamilton.
Bolter was not selected for S Bas because she withdrew (citing UKIP sexual harassment). Hamilton was brought in and then he withdrew (citing UKIP dirty dricks as it happens). So they never had a chance to be selected. If UKIP were serious about not wanting to select Hamilton why did they put him up and then why leak a letter as a way to force him out? Leaking letters is hardly redolent of the new politics. Hamilton also withdrew from Boston so again the constituency did not vote for or against him. In fact the selection of 22 yr old Hunter-Clark opens up a raft of new conspiracy theories if you could but stir yourself to look.

It is 'two UKIP senior officials' who have told the FS about Wheeler. So I am not sure what anybody expects them to do. Interestingly this is not a story about scandals any more its about demands that UKIP should get preferential treatment.

Bolter withdrew because people rumbled she was an absolute nutter

I take about as much notice of your incoherent ramblings as I do German 3rd division handball results, so I wouldn't waste your time if I were you

For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.

Floater said:

SquareRoot said:

This the Broxtowe ward result.. frankly I am amazed, I thought it was all sewn up ..


Toton & Childwell Meadows (Broxtowe) result:
CON - 54.5% (+5.8)
LAB - 26.0% (-3.5)
UKIP - 19.5% (+9.8)

What did the Lib Dems get?

(Should I add << innocent face>>?

anotherDave said:

Neil said:

The bit I found interesting about the FT article was that UKIP only had between £70,000 and £80,000 in the bank. Ok that's better than having outstanding loans but with their membership surge I would have thought the finances would be in better shape than that. Their outgoings must be very high.

Why are you assuming the FT article was correct?

Tissue_Price said:

edmundintokyo said:

saddened said:

For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.

That may be good advice but I hope that:
1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere.
2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.

The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Punter, indeed (I did know that, but pointing it out would've slowed down the one-liner).

The schmeckle test sounds like a todger inspection.

Speaking of which, Timothy Stanley, a Telegraph writer, is bleating on Twitter about civilisation ending because some people are protesting against state puritanism and new restrictions on whacking material.

edmundintokyo said:

Tissue_Price said:

edmundintokyo said:

saddened said:

For someone who has aspirations to getting on the list of UKIP PPC's do you think it's wise to call people "absolute nutters". Things like that can and have barred people at the vetting stage. It doesn't show you in a particularly good light. Well meant advice, take it or leave it, it's up to you.

That may be good advice but I hope that:
1) People with political ambitions don't self-censor on this site or elsewhere.
2) People doing selections don't trawl the internet looking for impolitic comments.

The evidence from PB's past is that (2) did occur - or, rather, attention was drawn to a would-be PPC's remarks on here. No doubt (1) occurs too.

You're probably right. It's this phenomenon in action:
http://www.theonion.com/video/report-every-potential-2040-president-already-unel,27963/

Voters and people doing selections should be aware that if you can't find something rude or offensive in somebody's online presence, that's a sign the person is either sociopathically politically ambitious to the point of dangerous mental illness or is doing all their online stuff under a meticulously compartmentalized pseudonym, which they probably only need because they write really nasty shit about Jews.