politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The debate: The post mortem continues
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The debate: The post mortem continues
One of the things I keep on getting asked is whether betting markets are good pointer to political outcomes. Well last night we might have had an answer.
Comments
-
First.
Nothing said about Britain and the rest of the world - nothing on Iran or Russia for example.0 -
FPT:
Even if he'd wanted to make that point he could have taken a different slant on it. There are some issues that don't go away just because they're inconvenient or don't fit a particular worldview ("it's a fact, it's a fact, it's a fact", although I think that was a rather weak way of putting it).Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:
Being nice to migrants makes us all feel fluffy and good and multicultural and compassionate or whatever, but if we really wanted to treat every sufferer as a human being, then we'd be sending out the RAF (or Scottish Air Force) to ferry all the diseased people to the UK so the NHS can save them.
Instead, we have a system where we are quite happy to treat your ailment, but only if you are brave and resourceful - and, ultimately, lucky - enough to give tens of thousands of dollars to untrustworthy organised criminals, to take the risks (and perhaps subject your partner and even your children to these perils too) of leaky hulls and suffocating lorries, and somehow survive it. Jump through those hoops for us, then we will give you your meds (or whatever it is you've come to these shores for) and celebrate how humane that makes us.
Thousands of bodies are washing up on the Mediterranean, and we are having a mutual anti-Kipper wankfest over how "compassionate" we all are.
It's a self-consistent and rationally arguable policy to open the gates: "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". I might even vote for it, though I suspect the majority of Brits would not feel so tempted. There is also a case that our entry policy should be made rather less inviting and rather more discerning. In the meantime, the wretched refuse teems homeless and tempest-tost along Europe's golden door.
The hypocrisy of our "morally comfortable" policy of being "firm but fair" on migration controls, is that while we may be blind to its consequences, under such a policy the optimum number of migrant deaths is greater than zero.0 -
JackW said:
I thought Farage missed a significant opportunity last night.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:
The smart play was to whistle gently to the base whilst reaching out to potential switchers. Instead he opted to whistle squarci throughout the debate as if his base needed shoring up which it didn't.0 -
Political betting markets are very weak relative to most sports... It doesn't take much money at all to move them, and a marked account moves then in tiny amounts, so I'd agree they aren't as good an indicator as people sometimes like to think0
-
Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".0 -
FPT Matthew Wall of Swansea University has a research paper suggesting that two UK seats were won at odds between 10/1 and 20/1 on Betfair. I don't think there was an answer, but without any memories of the markets at all, I would speculate they were Redcar plus one, perhaps Belfast East or Montgomery. (Twelve candidates won at between 5/1 and 10/1.)-1
-
It will be a crappy choice, but....
I am tempted to vote Tory (again) in my Befordshire seat come May. I want to vote UKIP but am apart from illiberal parties (c.f. ScotsNaz, Pissed-Currie [sp?] and the Dhimmies). Stupid folk appear to get wrapped-up with politics as a career: Maybe we need a clear-out...?
My position is clear:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q
All else is....
:tumbleweed:0 -
Problem with this thread is that the political debate was far more uncertain than voting. For a start there are all manner of historic precedents for 7th May 2015 whereas this 7-way debate was the first ever. There's also a big difference between winning a debate and who people will support in a vote. We need to wait for the shakedown on this.
Do I think the markets are right to favour the tories? Yes. Do I think they're over baked? Yes.0 -
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.
0 -
If one believes that associating immigration with HIV appeals to racist tropes, how should one express that feeling?MyBurningEars said:Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".0 -
I agree with those who argue that EM would benefit from the anti-Austerity message put forward by Nicola Sturgeon. The trouble is ,though, that 95% of the electorate are pretty well illiterate when it comes to macroeconomics and see the economy in pure accountancy terms. Last night would have been far too late to begin promoting this mssage but it s such a missed opportunit that Labour has over the past few years failed to draw on history to make the anti-austerity case. In particular when Harold Macmillan informed the nation in his speech at Bedford in the late 1950s that ‘we have never had it so good’ the Debt to GDP ratio was 105%. He saw no need to pursue a policy of austerity – on the contrary it had been phased out half a decade earlier when the Debt/GDP figure was well over 200%.Why then do we0
-
They may also bet to hedge against an outcome they do not want- from that prespective backing Miliband to be Prime Minister after the election makes sense if you anticpate paying more tax as a consequence.0
-
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.0 -
Possibly you are being racist by assuming immigrant means the person is a different race. Different race to what, considering the rich and varied racial heritage of today's UK? It a leftie dog whistle, nothing more.EPG said:
If one believes that associating immigration with HIV appeals to racist tropes, how should one express that feeling?MyBurningEars said:Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".0 -
Here's a good reason why 'who won the debate' polls can be meaningless. I don't mind betting every single ukip supporter in the land watched their man last night. So betcha more than 20% of the 7m viewers were ukip.Danny565 said:
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:0 -
So you condemn the immigration policies of Australia and Canada then I assume. It just the same nonsense as calling the UKIP capped immigration policy racist when it explicitly isn't, its based on merit, where as the EU policy explicitly is, nice white Europeans get in, brown people have to jump through hoops or have a rich sponsor.EPG said:
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.0 -
I thought all the kippers were out on the street playing football in the evenings.Purseybear said:
Here's a good reason why 'who won the debate' polls can be meaningless. I don't mind betting every single ukip supporter in the land watched their man last night. So betcha more than 20% of the 7m viewers were ukip.Danny565 said:
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:0 -
If Farage had got 1% more in the average of the polls at the expense of Cameron, then the betting on the Ladbrokes board would have correctly predicted the exact order of the seven runners. Then the Ladbrokes PR dept could (and probably would) have claimed that the betting nailed it.0
-
It certainly didn't bother this UKIP supporter.EPG said:
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.
0 -
You can play football with a walking stick?rottenborough said:
I thought all the kippers were out on the street playing football in the evenings.Purseybear said:
Here's a good reason why 'who won the debate' polls can be meaningless. I don't mind betting every single ukip supporter in the land watched their man last night. So betcha more than 20% of the 7m viewers were ukip.Danny565 said:
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:0 -
Nige proposes policies which numerous other countries have adopted and he is branded a bigot. Whilst the metropolitan elite may be expressing faux outrage the WWC up and down the country will be agreeing with his comments.Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.
Labour need to decide whether they are a party for the working class or a party for the metropolitan elite. As long as they pursue policies which appeal to the luvvies UKIP will continue to eat into their vote share. I think they will be in for a nasty shock when UKIP rack up an awful lot of solid second place finishes in working class nothern constituencies.
0 -
MBE makes good points at the start of the thread.Indigo said:
So you condemn the immigration policies of Australia and Canada then I assume. It just the same nonsense as calling the UKIP capped immigration policy racist when it explicitly isn't, its based on merit, where as the EU policy explicitly is, nice white Europeans get in, brown people have to jump through hoops or have a rich sponsor.EPG said:
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.
0 -
Yes, I condemn the immigration policies of Australia. I don't know enough about Canada's policy mix. The EU policy is that EU members can move around EU countries, which is as un-racist as saying that Californians can move to Vermont. But I repeat, non nobis! Why are the Ukippers here so worried about associating HIV with immigrants?Indigo said:
So you condemn the immigration policies of Australia and Canada then I assume. It just the same nonsense as calling the UKIP capped immigration policy racist when it explicitly isn't, its based on merit, where as the EU policy explicitly is, nice white Europeans get in, brown people have to jump through hoops or have a rich sponsor.EPG said:
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.0 -
I am not even a UKIP supporter, I despite sanctimonious leftie dog whistles and cant. Especially attempts to turn everything it a race discussion, its so 1990's. People who know about my circumstances know I am about as far from racist as you can get, its not about race its about money. It would be fascinating to get a survey of British minorities and see what they think about subsidising the health care of people arriving from other countries with communicable diseases while our economy is in the state it is in.Sean_F said:
It certainly didn't bother this UKIP supporter.EPG said:
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes and who pays issue.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
Australia: HIV testing for permanent visa applicants over the age of 15 is required. Immigration only permitted if it wont impose significant cost on the country, wont unduly expose Australian citizens and will not prejudice citizens access to healthcare.
Canada: All foreigners intending to stay in Canada for more than 6 months have to get tested for HIV. With the exception of refugees, spouses and dependants, HIV sufferers will not be granted a stay over six months
Its not like what Farage was talking about isn't current the case in two of the most liberal countries in the world.
Hungary an EU country requires appropriate health insurance for any immigrant with an infectious disease.0 -
It was clear early on that Farage was comfortably the best speaker but he over did it with the constant immigration talk and he had a quiet end to the show, which probably cost him further.
Sturgeon did very well to win considering the low base of SNP supporters in the sample compared to Cameron and Farage who would have got 20% each no matter how good or bad they did.0 -
Meantime Labour have shot out on betfair to 32 from low 20's y'day. Markets now discounting a Labour victory.0
-
I would have thought that was incredibly obvious, because it makes lefties jump up and down and scream wacist in a boring and predictable manner as they try and close down the debate.EPG said:. But I repeat, non nobis! Why are the Ukippers here so worried about associating HIV with immigrants?
If you are in favour of paying for the health care of people arriving at the country with cronic conditions by extension you think we should sent out aircraft and fly in anyone suffering from such a condition around the world, if not its just comfort zone humbug, you just want to treat the people you can see, and never mind the ones that drown in little boats trying to get here.
0 -
Hmm, should I bore everyone with my extensive note summaries for each section of the night? I took the opening response to each question as separate from the debates.0
-
If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite? Or is there some irresistable force pulling them away from voting for the policies they've always secretly very strongly agreed with, but that they've no chance to support in the election, because nobody in the country is aware that Nigel Farage is leading a political party that opposes immigration?0
-
Which I would acknowledge as a fair point. When Wood criticised Farage he retorted that it was true but no one seemed interested in saying whether it was or not. The outrage was more important than explaining that it was outrageous and nonsense (if it was).Indigo said:
I would have thought that was incredibly obvious, because it makes lefties jump up and down and scream wacist in a boring and predictable manner without attempting to engage with the debate.EPG said:. But I repeat, non nobis! Why are the Ukippers here so worried about associating HIV with immigrants?
0 -
EICIPM 2.32 in from 2.4 the last time i looked earlier this weekPurseybear said:Meantime Labour have shot out on betfair to 32 from low 20's y'day. Markets now discounting a Labour victory.
0 -
Asylum is based on making a promise "anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution is entitled to settle" that could never be honoured, and which we have no intention of honouring.MyBurningEars said:FPT:
Even if he'd wanted to make that point he could have taken a different slant on it. There are some issues that don't go away just because they're inconvenient or don't fit a particular worldview ("it's a fact, it's a fact, it's a fact", although I think that was a rather weak way of putting it).Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:
Being nice to migrants makes us all feel fluffy and good and multicultural and compassionate or whatever, but if we really wanted to treat every sufferer as a human being, then we'd be sending out the RAF (or Scottish Air Force) to ferry all the diseased people to the UK so the NHS can save them.
Instead, we have a system where we are quite happy to treat your ailment, but only if you are brave and resourceful - and, ultimately, lucky - enough to give tens of thousands of dollars to untrustworthy organised criminals, to take the risks (and perhaps subject your partner and even your children to these perils too) of leaky hulls and suffocating lorries, and somehow survive it. Jump through those hoops for us, then we will give you your meds (or whatever it is you've come to these shores for) and celebrate how humane that makes us.
Thousands of bodies are washing up on the Mediterranean, and we are having a mutual anti-Kipper wankfest over how "compassionate" we all are.
It's a self-consistent and rationally arguable policy to open the gates: "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". I might even vote for it, though I suspect the majority of Brits would not feel so tempted. There is also a case that our entry policy should be made rather less inviting and rather more discerning. In the meantime, the wretched refuse teems homeless and tempest-tost along Europe's golden door.
The hypocrisy of our "morally comfortable" policy of being "firm but fair" on migration controls, is that while we may be blind to its consequences, under such a policy the optimum number of migrant deaths is greater than zero.
0 -
If you think Britain should spend an extra £3 billion a year on the NHS, then by extension do you think Britain should spend an extra £27 billion a year on the NHS, or do you choose a middle ground between spending nothing and spending everything?Indigo said:
I would have thought that was incredibly obvious, because it makes lefties jump up and down and scream wacist in a boring and predictable manner as they try and close down the debate.EPG said:. But I repeat, non nobis! Why are the Ukippers here so worried about associating HIV with immigrants?
If you are in favour of paying for the health care of people arriving at the country with cronic conditions by extension you think we should sent out aircraft and fly in anyone suffering from such a condition around the world, if not its just comfort zone humbug, you just want to treat the people you can see, and never mind the ones that drown in little boats trying to get here.0 -
Yup, we've had a deficit for 100 of the last 150 years. And it shows just how much potential an anti austerity argument has that a woman pushing that argument came almost equal-top in the debate despite not even running in 90% of the country.justin124 said:I agree with those who argue that EM would benefit from the anti-Austerity message put forward by Nicola Sturgeon. The trouble is ,though, that 95% of the electorate are pretty well illiterate when it comes to macroeconomics and see the economy in pure accountancy terms. Last night would have been far too late to begin promoting this mssage but it s such a missed opportunit that Labour has over the past few years failed to draw on history to make the anti-austerity case. In particular when Harold Macmillan informed the nation in his speech at Bedford in the late 1950s that ‘we have never had it so good’ the Debt to GDP ratio was 105%. He saw no need to pursue a policy of austerity – on the contrary it had been phased out half a decade earlier when the Debt/GDP figure was well over 200%.Why then do we
The irony is, Labour conceding defeat on the austerity issue has actually made their "economic credibility" ratings a whole lot WORSE. Because they've allowed the narrative that deficits are evil and that government spending is a bad thing to become so dominant, it leads people inevitably to conclude that the last Labour government messed up. Because Ed wasn't willing to contest Cameron and Clegg last night when they talked about the mess Labour had made, that will obviously mean voters think they must be right.0 -
Are you not aware of walking football? See www.walkingfootballunited.co.uk/Purseybear said:
You can play football with a walking stick?rottenborough said:
I thought all the kippers were out on the street playing football in the evenings.Purseybear said:
Here's a good reason why 'who won the debate' polls can be meaningless. I don't mind betting every single ukip supporter in the land watched their man last night. So betcha more than 20% of the 7m viewers were ukip.Danny565 said:
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:0 -
Lab most seats at 3.1.
Been about that for a couple of weeks.0 -
Always the hidden problem with UKIP rhtetoric, that. On some issues they are definitely in the mainstream, and the others try to react accordingly, but the rhetoric has trouble squaring UKIP doing well with the fact that millions and millions more will decide - and many decide for positive reasons - to vote for the discredited, hopeless big two.EPG said:If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite?
0 -
Betting Markets tend to overstate the media narrative.
Lots of punters bet on politics when they don't know the detail. They just follow the press and bet accordingly.0 -
So by extension everyone else should be voting for the greens since they propose open borders and unlimited immigration, oh wait....EPG said:If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite? Or is there some irresistable force pulling them away from voting for the policies they've always secretly very strongly agreed with, but that they've no chance to support in the election, because nobody in the country is aware that Nigel Farage is leading a political party that opposes immigration?
BES2014 showing that 76% of the population want immigration reduced, 52% "reduced considerably", trying to say people are choosing not to vote for Farage because of his immigration policy is pretty unlikely, there are lots of other reason not to vote for him, no least his collection of fruitcakes for candidates, and his irritating cheeky chappy manner, trying to everyone's voting choice down to Farage's views on immigration does feel rather a stretch.0 -
"The notion that betting’s a good pointer to political outcomes got thwacked last night"
Not sure a 7 way debate is a good test of this hypothesis. One giant mud bath, 7 politicians tipped into it and they spend 2hrs rolling around in it akin to some sort of weird WWE mud wrestling match...impossible to tell from the outside who is winning and losing. Only that some are muddier than others, but no indication of who is "winning", and also that some aren't trying to win only get less muddy than the others.0 -
No. People vote for many reasons. There are plenty of Conservatives who have much the same view that UKIP have about immigration, but have other reasons for voting Conservative, not least, fear of letting in Labour.EPG said:If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite? Or is there some irresistable force pulling them away from voting for the policies they've always secretly very strongly agreed with, but that they've no chance to support in the election, because nobody in the country is aware that Nigel Farage is leading a political party that opposes immigration?
0 -
Indigo said:
I am not even a UKIP supporter, I despite sanctimonious leftie dog whistles and cant. Especially attempts to turn everything it a race discussion, its so 1990's. People who know about my circumstances know I am about as far from racist as you can get, its not about race its about money. It would be fascinating to get a survey of British minorities and see what they think about subsidising the health care of people arriving from other countries with communicable diseases while our economy is in the state it is in.Sean_F said:
It certainly didn't bother this UKIP supporter.EPG said:
Non nobis, domine, non nobis. Look at the many Ukip supporters on here who disagree that associating HIV with immigrants is publicly acceptable, inoffensive, speaking one's mind, normal political debate, racially neutral as to whether the immigrants are black Africans or white New Zealanders. Why do they think that, I wonder?Indigo said:
Indeed, migrant, migrant being people that as yet haven't contributed to the country, and so should not be able to impose a great cost on the country in front of people already living there and contribute, irrespective of the race of the immigrant, or the race of the person already contributing. Trying to paint this as a race issue is tendentious bollocks, its a who contributes ny immigrant with an infectious disease.EPG said:See? Kips are easily offended. Essentially, any attempt to analyse their leader's public statements offends them. Oh, it's demeaning. Oh, it's a form of superiority/supremacism. How dare we try to find a racial subtext to the Farage bandwagon, he's just linking AIDS to migrants, nothing more than that. But when other people get offended, it's all about free speech, bravely saying the unsayable, shattering the metropolitan elite consensus.
'According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK".'
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/27/support-poll-support-far-right0 -
My wife watched it all last night.
Thought Sturgeon was by far the best performer.
She did like Farage.
Thought Milliband was bad and Clegg the worst.
She said if she thought Farage / UKIP could win they would get her vote - as that is not even an outside chance she is going Blue.
I didn't bother to watch debate my mind made up a week or so ago
That's 2 votes for the Blues in Colchester.
Last time we were asked voting intentions locally she was 100% lib Dem and I was torn 3 ways.
Can't believe we the only ones whose votes firm up when you consider pm milliband as the alternative.0 -
The Greens also embody lots of little daft ideas about socialism and environmentalism. Ukip is one big idea: Britain alone, keeping foreigners at a greater distance. Clearly people don't believe in anti-immigration enough to actually vote for the party of anti-immigration and to vote against the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite consensus.Indigo said:
So by extension everyone else should be voting for the greens since they propose open borders and unlimited immigration, oh wait....EPG said:If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite? Or is there some irresistable force pulling them away from voting for the policies they've always secretly very strongly agreed with, but that they've no chance to support in the election, because nobody in the country is aware that Nigel Farage is leading a political party that opposes immigration?
BES2014 showing that 76% of the population want immigration reduced, 52% "reduced considerably", trying to say people are choosing not to vote for Farage because of his immigration policy is pretty unlikely, there are lots of other reason not to vote for him, no least his collection of fruitcakes for candidates, and his irritating cheeky chappy manner, trying to everyone's voting choice down to Farage's views on immigration does feel rather a stretch.0 -
HockeyPurseybear said:
You can play football with a walking stick?rottenborough said:
I thought all the kippers were out on the street playing football in the evenings.Purseybear said:
Here's a good reason why 'who won the debate' polls can be meaningless. I don't mind betting every single ukip supporter in the land watched their man last night. So betcha more than 20% of the 7m viewers were ukip.Danny565 said:
Farage's debate rating was quite a way ahead of UKIP's current poll ratings, though. It might remind some people who were saying they would vote UKIP last year, but had in recent months drifted back to Tory or Labour, why they liked UKIP in the first place.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:
0 -
The problem I have with this is that Sturgeon may be a fine debater, but she and her party don't actually have any real experience of running a countries economy. Presently they get to spend some pocket money sent north from Westminster. When the SNP has to actually raise the money they spend, and get re-elected off the back of those decisions, then I will be listening to her economic prescription with my full attention.Danny565 said:Yup, we've had a deficit for 100 of the last 150 years. And it shows just how much potential an anti austerity argument has that a woman pushing that argument came almost equal-top in the debate despite not even running in 90% of the country..
0 -
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?MyBurningEars said:Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
I profoundly disagree with them but at their best UKIP are a party with an interesting philosophy. One might think they're completely and utterly wrong but there's something there. In fact it's arguably a good thing that those who are a bit racist are voting for a party that generally isn't and articulates a section of the population's views.
The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
At their best, UKIP have legitimate arguments about the benefits of being in the EU and immigration, which even if you disagree with them have to be answered. That nonsense isn't one of them.0 -
Rolling around in a bath, mud or otherwise, with Nicola Sturgeon. Or come to that Leanne Wood. Hmmmm!!!!!FrancisUrquhart said:"The notion that betting’s a good pointer to political outcomes got thwacked last night"
Not sure a 7 way debate is a good test of this hypothesis. One giant mud bath, 7 politicians tipped into it and they spend 2hrs rolling around in it akin to some sort of weird WWE mud wrestling match...impossible to tell from the outside who is winning and losing. Only that some are muddier than others, but no indication of who is "winning", and also that some aren't trying to win only get less muddy than the others.
I think a large glass of cold water is indicated.0 -
Some people are confusing some claims about Farage's conflation of HIV and migrants.
Many British people who are not white oppose immigration. This is true.
Many British people oppose immigration as a carapace for their opinions about people of other races; Farage used HIV to whip up racialist sentiment behind Ukip. This is the claim. The truth of the first statement is independent of the truth of this claim.0 -
Christ on a bike, I think we can agree that people vote for parties on the basis of more than one policy. For all we know half the population might agree with UKIPs immigration policy, but they probably want to elect someone that might fix the economy as well. If you think that anyone who wants to reduce immigration would be a kipper, you presumably think anyone that practises a trade votes Labour.EPG said:
The Greens also embody lots of little daft ideas about socialism and environmentalism. Ukip is one big idea: Britain alone, keeping foreigners at a greater distance. Clearly people don't believe in anti-immigration enough to actually vote for the party of anti-immigration and to vote against the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite consensus.Indigo said:
So by extension everyone else should be voting for the greens since they propose open borders and unlimited immigration, oh wait....EPG said:If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite? Or is there some irresistable force pulling them away from voting for the policies they've always secretly very strongly agreed with, but that they've no chance to support in the election, because nobody in the country is aware that Nigel Farage is leading a political party that opposes immigration?
BES2014 showing that 76% of the population want immigration reduced, 52% "reduced considerably", trying to say people are choosing not to vote for Farage because of his immigration policy is pretty unlikely, there are lots of other reason not to vote for him, no least his collection of fruitcakes for candidates, and his irritating cheeky chappy manner, trying to everyone's voting choice down to Farage's views on immigration does feel rather a stretch.0 -
JackW said:
Whatever Farage said or did in the debate, or the way he said it, or frowned, or smiled, would be and has been mulled over by the PB tories and labourites until, as now, it becomes self defeating.JackW said:
I thought Farage missed a significant opportunity last night.Luckyguy1983 said:
But doing well later was inevitable. Nigel is the best speaker and debater out of that bunch by a country mile. It's like someone doing an exam with no revision but scraping a 'B' because they're bright and they write well. They should have got an A+. And that's Nigel. Not a single person who likes UKIP but doesn't say so at work for fear of the reaction will have a shred more confidence to do so now than they did yesterday, which is a terrible shame.nigel4england said:
Agree the HIV comment was horrible, I was repulsed with that argument, but it is true he did well later.Luckyguy1983 said:
Fair enough really. Nigel should be kicking himself today; he really let himself and the party down.TGOHF said:
The smart play was to whistle gently to the base whilst reaching out to potential switchers. Instead he opted to whistle squarci throughout the debate as if his base needed shoring up which it didn't.
The Omnishambles format of the debate, so craftily planned by Cameron and the broadcasters, would not and could not bring out the best in Farage, although he did quite well among the fruitcakes of the other 6. The fact is that Cammo for all his bluster, is a coward when it comes to a head to head with Farage, Red Ed and Cleggover.0 -
Yup, we've had a deficit for 100 of the last 150 years. And it shows just how much potential an anti austerity argument has that a woman pushing that argument came almost equal-top in the debate despite not even running in 90% of the country.
The irony is, Labour conceding defeat on the austerity issue has actually made their "economic credibility" ratings a whole lot WORSE. Because they've allowed the narrative that deficits are evil and that government spending is a bad thing to become so dominant, it leads people inevitably to conclude that the last Labour government messed up. Because Ed wasn't willing to contest Cameron and Clegg last night when they talked about the mess Labour had made, that will obviously mean voters think they must be right.
Any country can borrow money - for a fee dependant on how much the lender trusts you to pay it back. The more you borrow, the greater the risk and the higher the cost. Have you even heard of Greece? Since you appear to want the money primarily to fund another benefit splurge - forget it.0 -
So there was seven million viewers last night. Not bad I guess, but huge viewership. I would think a lot more will see it only through the prism of the clips on the news, the write up in the papers, twitter etc.0
-
Oh feck:
There is no such thing as a "British" NHS. When will you ill-informed amatuers learn this?
:boat-anchours:0 -
Whatever Farage said or did in the debate, or the way he said it, or frowned, or smiled, would be and has been mulled over by the PB tories and labourites until, as now, it becomes self defeating.
The Omnishambles format of the debate, so craftily planned by Cameron and the broadcasters, would not and could not bring out the best in Farage, although he did quite well among the fruitcakes of the other 6. The fact is that Cammo for all his bluster, is a coward when it comes to a head to head with Farage, Red Ed and Cleggover.0 -
"HIV treatment costs £25,000 a year. Should we test immigrants for HIV before we give them the right to live in the UK and free access to the NHS?"
Seems most people here would answer "No"... each to their own0 -
Danny565 Justin124 Yet with the economy growing again the main reason the Tories will likely fail to win a majority is they have not yet delivered a surplus and voters want the finances restored without public services slashed to the bone, the Tories have problem with being seen as an uncaring party of the rich as much as Labour have one of being economically illiterate spendthrifts0
-
This is in effect the argument made by Australia and Canada, an economic argument, it's not about HIV specifically, its about any chronic condition that will impose significant cost on their state, or restrict access to the equivalent treatments for their citizens. Its about protecting their own citizens and putting them first irrespective of the race of the citizen or the immigrant.marktheowl said:The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
0 -
ComRes tables are on line.
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ITV-News-Leaders-Debate-Snap-Poll_Table.pdf0 -
Interviews without biscuits or coffee.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally0 -
Right, exactly. If people vote to prioritise the economy over immigration, then the LabLibCon parties are within their rights to say that they aren't just a leftie luvvie metropolitian elite consensus, that they need to largely overlook popular but not-very-salient beliefs about migrants in the name of promoting the economy, and that the public overwhelmingly support them in this choice.Indigo said:
Christ on a bike, I think we can agree that people vote for parties on the basis of more than one policy. For all we know half the population might agree with UKIPs immigration policy, but they probably want to elect someone that might fix the economy as well. If you think that anyone who wants to reduce immigration would be a kipper, you presumably think anyone that practises a trade votes Labour.EPG said:
The Greens also embody lots of little daft ideas about socialism and environmentalism. Ukip is one big idea: Britain alone, keeping foreigners at a greater distance. Clearly people don't believe in anti-immigration enough to actually vote for the party of anti-immigration and to vote against the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite consensus.Indigo said:
So by extension everyone else should be voting for the greens since they propose open borders and unlimited immigration, oh wait....EPG said:If Ukip win 12 per cent of the vote, does that mean 88 per cent of people are the leftie luvvie metropolitan elite? Or is there some irresistable force pulling them away from voting for the policies they've always secretly very strongly agreed with, but that they've no chance to support in the election, because nobody in the country is aware that Nigel Farage is leading a political party that opposes immigration?
BES2014 showing that 76% of the population want immigration reduced, 52% "reduced considerably", trying to say people are choosing not to vote for Farage because of his immigration policy is pretty unlikely, there are lots of other reason not to vote for him, no least his collection of fruitcakes for candidates, and his irritating cheeky chappy manner, trying to everyone's voting choice down to Farage's views on immigration does feel rather a stretch.0 -
Very well said, and I'm a Tory.marktheowl said:
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?MyBurningEars said:Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
I profoundly disagree with them but at their best UKIP are a party with an interesting philosophy. One might think they're completely and utterly wrong but there's something there. In fact it's arguably a good thing that those who are a bit racist are voting for a party that generally isn't and articulates a section of the population's views.
The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
At their best, UKIP have legitimate arguments about the benefits of being in the EU and immigration, which even if you disagree with them have to be answered. That nonsense isn't one of them.0 -
No doubt these "nine conservative-Asians" will get another chance to vote - again - for sven's "flockers"? Maybe a 'vote-swap-out' from Rochdale to Broxtowe...?dr_spyn said:Interviews without biscuits or coffee.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
:paint-it-black:0 -
You and others deliberately miss the point. Farage was only using HIV sufferers as an example that foreigners who have not paid a penny into the upkeep of the NHS, can come to this country and get treatment free (cost £24k) at British taxpayers expense. He could probably used cancer patients or other diseases, but the outcry would probably be the same, because Farage uttered them.marktheowl said:
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?MyBurningEars said:Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
I profoundly disagree with them but at their best UKIP are a party with an interesting philosophy. One might think they're completely and utterly wrong but there's something there. In fact it's arguably a good thing that those who are a bit racist are voting for a party that generally isn't and articulates a section of the population's views.
The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
At their best, UKIP have legitimate arguments about the benefits of being in the EU and immigration, which even if you disagree with them have to be answered. That nonsense isn't one of them.
0 -
"It's only multiculturalism, doing it's thing baby...."dr_spyn said:Interviews without biscuits or coffee.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally0 -
Betting post:
Sporting Index Portsmouth South market is very interesting, but I believe the best UKIP can do here is second as GVJ will either galvanise the Lib Dem troops to win, or Flick Drummond comes home.
So it is a SELL for me at 4.00 -
As you can see here, Ukip and generally anti-immigration supporters is deeply split. Some anti-immigration people agree and are worried by Farage's line of rhetoric. Most, including many non-Kippers, believe there's nothing wrong about specifically stigmatising HIV as part of anti-immigration policies, and in fact that it is sensible and a good thing to say. I think attempting to unweave this kind of racism from a party that is only about anti-immigration is impossible, but to each his own and good luck to those Kippers who try.marktheowl said:
Can I be a lefty to defend UKIP, with a few caveats and explain why the HIV thing was dreadful?MyBurningEars said:Farage did little to win my vote last night, but the calls of do-gooders and right-thinkers that his voice should not be heard, that UKIP's opinions are not acceptable for debate, that the issues they raise (many of which resontate with the British public) do not need to be addressed, is something I find troubling.
I have the suspicion he was deliberately attempting to invoke such a backlash against him - I agree in principle with JackW that a subtler approach might have been advantageous, but he may have felt he could benefit from provoking a reaction that showed the left-wingers at their out-of-touch worst, and the Tories not prepared to engage with "the facts".
I profoundly disagree with them but at their best UKIP are a party with an interesting philosophy. One might think they're completely and utterly wrong but there's something there. In fact it's arguably a good thing that those who are a bit racist are voting for a party that generally isn't and articulates a section of the population's views.
The HIV thing last night was awful because it pandered to people's worst prejudices over what is, at its most heinous a tiny, tiny issue. It also stigmatises those with HIV who are British. We're also getting to the stage where people can live full lives with HIV, so it's doubly idiotic. Why not any other long term disease, before we get to the cost effectiveness of such a procedure?
At their best, UKIP have legitimate arguments about the benefits of being in the EU and immigration, which even if you disagree with them have to be answered. That nonsense isn't one of them.0 -
A fair point. How would you deliver a surplus? How do you deliver a surplus when the level of public spending has risen 50% in real terms in 10 years? In other words there was a massive structural deficit which the economy was in capable of filling. I fully accept that you realise this, but how do you deliver a surplus without cutting spending to fill that void? And if that void is bigger than first thought then how do you fill it except by even more cutting than planned.HYUFD said:Danny565 Justin124 Yet with the economy growing again the main reason the Tories will likely fail to win a majority is they have not yet delivered a surplus and voters want the finances restored without public services slashed to the bone, the Tories have problem with being seen as an uncaring party of the rich as much as Labour have one of being economically illiterate spendthrifts
0 -
You just cant help yourself can you, when did race suddenly come back into this debate ? Its like Pavlov's dog Farage: Racist, UKIP: Racist, Talking about immigration: Racist.EPG said:As you can see here, Ukip and generally anti-immigration supporters is deeply split. Some anti-immigration people agree and are worried by Farage's line of rhetoric. Most, including many non-Kippers, believe there's nothing wrong about specifically stigmatising HIV as part of anti-immigration policies, and in fact that it is sensible and a good thing to say. I think attempting to unweave this kind of racism from a party that is only about anti-immigration is impossible, but to each his own and good luck to those Kippers who try.
Controlling immigration isn't racist. Stopping people coming into the country because of their race (like the EU does) is racist.
0 -
'Any country can borrow money - for a fee dependant on how much the lender trusts you to pay it back. The more you borrow, the greater the risk and the higher the cost. Have you even heard of Greece? Since you appear to want the money primarily to fund another benefit splurge - forget it.'felix said:
Yup, we've had a deficit for 100 of the last 150 years. And it shows just how much potential an anti austerity argument has that a woman pushing that argument came almost equal-top in the debate despite not even running in 90% of the country.
The irony is, Labour conceding defeat on the austerity issue has actually made their "economic credibility" ratings a whole lot WORSE. Because they've allowed the narrative that deficits are evil and that government spending is a bad thing to become so dominant, it leads people inevitably to conclude that the last Labour government messed up. Because Ed wasn't willing to contest Cameron and Clegg last night when they talked about the mess Labour had made, that will obviously mean voters think they must be right.
But Borrowing costs are far lower than when Macmillan spoke in the late 1950s!0 -
That effectively gives you a lay of 6.25-1 on the win, which beats bookie price and an almost Evens price against the second where Lib Dems are 15-8 to win.0
-
Flightpath Well personally I would end ringfencing which would help, and no major tax cuts until the finances are restored0
-
The key reason Sturgeon did so well with YouGov was that they were the only firm to ask "Leaving aside your own party preference, who do you think performed best overall in tonight’s debate?"
Everyone else just asked who "won" or "performed best".
If everyone had been aware of YouGov's wording then I suspect Sturgeon would have gone off a couple of points shorter (though still not fav).0 -
Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.0 -
Absolutely, but in my view, the reason Labour are viewed as economically-illiterate spendthrifts is precisely because they're not arguing against the Right's insistence that running a deficit is the height of incompetence. People are naturally going to conclude that, if even Labour aren't defending their actions in the last government, then they really must have screwed up.HYUFD said:Danny565 Justin124 Yet with the economy growing again the main reason the Tories will likely fail to win a majority is they have not yet delivered a surplus and voters want the finances restored without public services slashed to the bone, the Tories have problem with being seen as an uncaring party of the rich as much as Labour have one of being economically illiterate spendthrifts
Of course, in the period where Labour were (up to a point) fighting against austerity until they u-turned in mid-2013, they were doing far better in the polls.0 -
If anything 'significant' is found at the Councillor's premises which lead to charges, would Labour struggle to hold Rochdale, Heywood and Middleton?FluffyThoughts said:
No doubt these "nine conservative-Asians" will get another chance to vote - again - for sven's "flockers"? Maybe a 'vote-swap-out' from Rochdale to Broxtowe...?dr_spyn said:Interviews without biscuits or coffee.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
:paint-it-black:0 -
The EU says that we must treat citizens of other EU states as we treat our own. If that is racist, then so was the open borders policy we ran between Ireland and the UK from the formation of the Republic. And, for that matter, is our policy of allowing working holiday visas for people from certain parts of the Commonwealth.Indigo said:
You just cant help yourself can you, when did race suddenly come back into this debate ? Its like Pavlov's dog Farage: Racist, UKIP: Racist, Talking about immigration: Racist.EPG said:As you can see here, Ukip and generally anti-immigration supporters is deeply split. Some anti-immigration people agree and are worried by Farage's line of rhetoric. Most, including many non-Kippers, believe there's nothing wrong about specifically stigmatising HIV as part of anti-immigration policies, and in fact that it is sensible and a good thing to say. I think attempting to unweave this kind of racism from a party that is only about anti-immigration is impossible, but to each his own and good luck to those Kippers who try.
Controlling immigration isn't racist. Stopping people coming into the country because of their race (like the EU does) is racist.
We have never treated people from all countries as equal. That will not change under UKIP or if we leave the EU.0 -
Never mind. Getting bored with a circular debate0
-
Hard to call this as anything other than a Conservative win. That being said, the LibDems were ahead in the locals last time around - and that despite Mike Hancock and his wife standing as pseudo LibDem candidates (and losing their seats). I'd bet on Cons mid 30s, LD 25-30, UKIP 20-25.Pulpstar said:Betting post:
Sporting Index Portsmouth South market is very interesting, but I believe the best UKIP can do here is second as GVJ will either galvanise the Lib Dem troops to win, or Flick Drummond comes home.
So it is a SELL for me at 4.00 -
On your head be it . I have tried to boil it down to the most concise language possible.Plato said:Go on, I was watching The Dog Whisperer during the first hour...
kle4 said:Hmates.
Opening
Bennett - Clunky
Farage - Solid
Clegg - Desperate
Sturgeon - Reassuring
Cameron - Positive
Wood - Bland
Miliband - Specific
Q1 (Cuts)opening
Clegg - Vague
Cameron - Ditto
Wood - Clear
Farage - Focused
Miliband - Vague
Bennett - Firm
Sturgeon - Reasonable
Q1 debate
Clegg overdoing message, Cameron ok but hamstrung by failures, Farage and Sturgeon play well, Bennett getting a free ride, Ed M unclear
Q2 (NHS)opening
Farage – Not too extreme
Sturgeon – Stern and firm
Bennett – Lots of conviction
Clegg – Simple and effective
Wood – Very simple
Miliband – Specific, in contrast to others
Cameron – Scattered approach
Q2 debate
Clegg going ok until privatization argument, Bennett nearly invisible, Cameron trying too hard, Sturgeon at ease, Farage trying to be brash and bold, Ed not landing blows, receiving some from Wood.
Q3 opening
Miliband – Going for pro and anti immigrant vote?
Wood – Pro-migrant unequivocal
Sturgeon – Positive and upfront
Cameron – Detail on policy by necessity
Farage – Very strong and distinct
Clegg – Waffling
Bennett – More nuanced than expected
Q3 (Immigration)debate
Some good lines from Miliband, Farage typically good, Cameron undercut by failures, first sign of petulance from Sturgeon, Bennett ok, Wood invisible.
Q4 opening
Wood – Platitudes – first time I tuned out.
Miliband – Student focus
Cameron – Platitudes
Bennett – Unexceptional but ok
Clegg – Tried his best. Tuition fees an open sore.
Sturgeon – Had an open goal and went through it
Farage – Very good
Q4 (Young people future)debate
Cameron hit by multiple good Miliband lines, Clegg trying to no effect, Wood workmanlike, Bennett as well she could hope for, Sturgeon full of pious platitudes, Farage more moderate.
Closings
Sturgeon – Predictable, a bit of self-righteousness coming through but still positive
Clegg – Weak closing, seemed indecisive
Miliband – Earnest, over rehearsed but animated.
Wood – Steady and positive
Bennett – Simple message
Farage – A bit jocular
Cameron – Bland but positive message
Summary/b>
Cameron - Not bad
Sturgeon - Good reassuring and positive performance
Wood - Drifted in and out, landed some blows on Ed
Miliband - Solid performance, some good lines, surprisingly specific at times
Bennett - Bad start but did well on several questions, not attacked and able to distinguish her position
Clegg - Fine, but won't be trusted to benefit from it
Farage - No major gaffes or wins.
0 -
'justin124 said:
'Any country can borrow money - for a fee dependant on how much the lender trusts you to pay it back. The more you borrow, the greater the risk and the higher the cost. Have you even heard of Greece? Since you appear to want the money primarily to fund another benefit splurge - forget it.felix said:
Yup, we've had a deficit for 100 of the last 150 years. And it shows just how much potential an anti austerity argument has that a woman pushing that argument came almost equal-top in the debate despite not even running in 90% of the country.
The irony is, Labour conceding defeat on the austerity issue has actually made their "economic credibility" ratings a whole lot WORSE. Because they've allowed the narrative that deficits are evil and that government spending is a bad thing to become so dominant, it leads people inevitably to conclude that the last Labour government messed up. Because Ed wasn't willing to contest Cameron and Clegg last night when they talked about the mess Labour had made, that will obviously mean voters think they must be right.
But Borrowing costs are far lower than when Macmillan spoke in the late 1950s!
They are lower because there is trust that the govt will act responsibly - those costs would be much higher under a Lab/SNP hook-up.0 -
I think the debates focus is misplaced. Yesterday's YG was far more interesting.0
-
Re: the HIV comment, I didn't see anything wrong with it. Then I assumed the outrage was based on an assumption of homophobic dog whistling rather than racism. The charge of racism seems odd since I suspect average Eastern European HIV levels are probably lower than average Commonwealth HIV levels and UKIP claim to want to rebalance our immigration criteria to the advantage of the latter at the expense of the former.0
-
I see the BBC are doing some great headline limbo dancing with this story...dr_spyn said:Interviews without biscuits or coffee.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
"Home searched after Turkey arrests"0 -
Ed wins comfortably among 18-34 year olds and DE's. 4th in Scotland and Wales.anotherDave said:ComRes tables are on line.
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ITV-News-Leaders-Debate-Snap-Poll_Table.pdf
One for the psephological risk assessors;
0 -
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"EPG said:Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?0 -
Quite possibly.rcs1000 said:
The EU says that we must treat citizens of other EU states as we treat our own. If that is racist, then so was the open borders policy we ran between Ireland and the UK from the formation of the Republic. And, for that matter, is our policy of allowing working holiday visas for people from certain parts of the Commonwealth.Indigo said:
You just cant help yourself can you, when did race suddenly come back into this debate ? Its like Pavlov's dog Farage: Racist, UKIP: Racist, Talking about immigration: Racist.EPG said:As you can see here, Ukip and generally anti-immigration supporters is deeply split. Some anti-immigration people agree and are worried by Farage's line of rhetoric. Most, including many non-Kippers, believe there's nothing wrong about specifically stigmatising HIV as part of anti-immigration policies, and in fact that it is sensible and a good thing to say. I think attempting to unweave this kind of racism from a party that is only about anti-immigration is impossible, but to each his own and good luck to those Kippers who try.
Controlling immigration isn't racist. Stopping people coming into the country because of their race (like the EU does) is racist.
We have never treated people from all countries as equal. That will not change under UKIP or if we leave the EU.
I am just pointing out that accusing the kippers of having a racist immigration policy which is in effect colour blind because its points system doesn't consider race or country of origin, while being completely happy with a policy which selects who can get into the country purely on the basis of where they come from, irrespective of their cost or benefit to the nation, is a bit of bizarre mental gymnastics.0 -
Not many? Perhaps. But Farage is seeking to shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans into England.isam said:
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"EPG said:Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?0 -
Danny565 Indeed, but generally voters turn to the Tories to sort out the economy, they elect Labour when the focus is on how to build a 'better' society0
-
That you draw that conclusion in the absence of any evidence I would suggest says rather more about you than it does about him.EPG said:
Not many? Perhaps. But Farage is seeking to shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans into England.isam said:
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"EPG said:Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?0 -
Waheed Ahmed's favourite book - Travels With My Aunt by Graham Greene. Might even turn into a film.FrancisUrquhart said:
I see the BBC are doing some great headline limbo dancing with this story...dr_spyn said:Interviews without biscuits or coffee.
Sky News Newsdesk @SkyNewsBreak 2m2 minutes ago
Nine Britons will be deported tomorrow after being arrested in #Turkey for trying to cross into #Syria illegally
"Home searched after Turkey arrests"0 -
No. It says nothing discernable about me and it says that he chose to bring up immigrants carrying HIV in front of seven million people. That was a comment that sounds much cleverer than it is.Indigo said:
That you draw that conclusion in the absence of any evidence I would suggest says rather more about you than it does about him.EPG said:
Not many? Perhaps. But Farage is seeking to shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans into England.isam said:
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"EPG said:Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?0 -
Labour collapse in Wales would be entertaining.chestnut said:
Ed wins comfortably among 18-34 year olds and DE's. 4th in Scotland and Wales.anotherDave said:ComRes tables are on line.
http://www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ITV-News-Leaders-Debate-Snap-Poll_Table.pdf
One for the psephological risk assessors;
0 -
Really interesting - tempted to watch 1st hour.
PS What controller do I use if I buy PC games? Can I throw the screen to a smart tv? This is all black magic to me these days.kle4 said:
OpeningPlato said:kle4 said:Hmates.
Bennett - Clunky
Farage - Solid
Clegg - Desperate
Sturgeon - Reassuring
Cameron - Positive
Wood - Bland
Miliband - Specific
Q1 (Cuts)opening
Clegg - Vague
Cameron - Ditto
Wood - Clear
Farage - Focused
Miliband - Vague
Bennett - Firm
Sturgeon - Reasonable
Q1 debate
Clegg overdoing message, Cameron ok but hamstrung by failures, Farage and Sturgeon play well, Bennett getting a free ride, Ed M unclear
Q2 (NHS)opening
Farage – Not too extreme
Sturgeon – Stern and firm
Bennett – Lots of conviction
Clegg – Simple and effective
Wood – Very simple
Miliband – Specific, in contrast to others
Cameron – Scattered approach
Q2 debate
Clegg going ok until privatization argument, Bennett nearly invisible, Cameron trying too hard, Sturgeon at ease, Farage trying to be brash and bold, Ed not landing blows, receiving some from Wood.
Q3 opening
Miliband – Going for pro and anti immigrant vote?
Wood – Pro-migrant unequivocal
Sturgeon – Positive and upfront
Cameron – Detail on policy by necessity
Farage – Very strong and distinct
Clegg – Waffling
Bennett – More nuanced than expected
Q3 (Immigration)debate
Some good lines from Miliband, Farage typically good, Cameron undercut by failures, first sign of petulance from Sturgeon, Bennett ok, Wood invisible.
Q4 opening
Wood – Platitudes – first time I tuned out.
Miliband – Student focus
Cameron – Platitudes
Bennett – Unexceptional but ok
Clegg – Tried his best. Tuition fees an open sore.
Sturgeon – Had an open goal and went through it
Farage – Very good
Q4 (Young people future)debate
Cameron hit by multiple good Miliband lines, Clegg trying to no effect, Wood workmanlike, Bennett as well she could hope for, Sturgeon full of pious platitudes, Farage more moderate.
Closings
Sturgeon – Predictable, a bit of self-righteousness coming through but still positive
Clegg – Weak closing, seemed indecisive
Miliband – Earnest, over rehearsed but animated.
Wood – Steady and positive
Bennett – Simple message
Farage – A bit jocular
Cameron – Bland but positive message
Summary/b>
Cameron - Not bad
Sturgeon - Good reassuring and positive performance
Wood - Drifted in and out, landed some blows on Ed
Miliband - Solid performance, some good lines, surprisingly specific at times
Bennett - Bad start but did well on several questions, not attacked and able to distinguish her position
Clegg - Fine, but won't be trusted to benefit from it
Farage - No major gaffes or wins.0 -
No answer to the question then, what a surpriseEPG said:
Not many? Perhaps. But Farage is seeking to shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans into England.isam said:
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"EPG said:Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?
0 -
Baloney. You said just above that he bought it up to "shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans" for which there is no evidence, it could just as easily have been a homophobic dog whistle as was suggested down thread, for which there is no evidence either. Or it could have been a people who arrive in this country of whatever race should not be a burden on the people who are already here, of what ever race, which would be entirely consistent with the points based immigration system they propose, which for some reason leftie scream about being racist as well despite being explicitly colour blind.EPG said:
No. It says nothing discernable about me and it says that he chose to bring up immigrants carrying HIV in front of seven million people. That was a comment that sounds much cleverer than it is.Indigo said:
That you draw that conclusion in the absence of any evidence I would suggest says rather more about you than it does about him.EPG said:
Not many? Perhaps. But Farage is seeking to shore up his vote precisely among the people who worry about letting the HIV-infected black Africans into England.isam said:
I wouldn't have thought many peoples first thought when someone says "HIV" is "black africans"EPG said:Why did John Tyndall say that Africa only gave the world "black magic, witchcraft, voodoo, cannibalism and AIDS"?
It must be because nobody out there has ever subconsciously or otherwise associated HIV or AIDS with black Africans. That's it. Clearly. Exact same as cancer or broken arm. Mind at ease. Farage nice man.
It's a disease that can be passed on and costs a fortune to treat. Getting off your high horse and leaving aside your own preconceptions and prejudices, why wouldn't you check whether someone wanting to come and live here is infected?
Its just playing the man and not the ball, because people don't like Farage or his views on the one hand, and its an issue at or near the top of the concerns of British voters which is uncomfortable for left leaners to deal with.0
