Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It has been working class voters who have been the main dri

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited May 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It has been working class voters who have been the main driver of the Ukip vote

Above is the split for the final Eastleigh poll by Lord Ashcroft. As can be seen it was C2s and DEs who swung most to the purples.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • So UKIP voters are plebs?
  • Is there a breakdown of how they voted last time?
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 3,643
    edited May 2013
    Signs of the SS outcome....look at tweeting activists from neighbouring boroughs...at 8PM...if they are tweeting they are going home....or not...if they are free to come back home, it's in the bag...if not,.....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    FPT

    These are quite good, historical characters given a modern overhaul. Nelson and Henry VIII look credible.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturepicturegalleries/10030619/Historical-Figures-for-the-21st-Century.html?frame=2551566
  • tarletontarleton Posts: 18
    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    tim said:

    Largely Tories who voted for Thatcher, and Major in 1992.
    That's why the Etonian Chumocracy tag is so toxic for Cameron.

    Or the people who are taking the hit on unrestricted immigration. hardly good news for ED either.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If the BBC were hoping for a day to bury bad news - the one day this year when they can't talk about politics must be a nightmare.

    Stuart Hall and their own report looks like timing to get it all out in one go - but its got the biggest form of cut-through re bugger all else on the radar. The fake bomb detectors are truly dreadful but they didn't touch us here - so is just another sociopath conman story.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Whatever Cameron says on immigration he can never win that bidding war with Farage.

    Entirely agreed. And voters know this. So trying to buy them off looks more insulting than sticking to your policies and explaining them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    tim said:

    @Alanbrooke

    Cameron's Tories aren't pulling out of the single market and ending free movement are they?
    And the Ashcroft polling shows the Tories lead on immigration down from 38% to 10%.
    Whatever Cameron says on immigration he can never win that bidding war with Farage - we'll see the effects of him attempting to in the local election results.

    Of course he won't, and neither can Labour, but all will gradually water down the free for all of the noughties since immigration will cost them votes if they don't.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,018
    Hardly surprising that the working class are gradually turning towards a new party. Labour priced the working poor out of owning a house, repressed their wages with huge amounts of immigration and increased their taxes to spray at the middle class public sector workers who now vote for them instead.

    Luckily for Labour UKIP won't be taking many seats off them in the next election so in the short term it will actually help them if anything.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    Nice line from Diane James:
    "I've been a political anorak for twenty years, and I still don't know what the LDs are for." :-)

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I'm delighted.

    "Chris Grayling has ordered an urgent review of a controversial court that has the power to make life-or-death decisions – and even send people to jail – in secret.

    The Justice Secretary last night asked one of the country’s most senior judges to consider steps to increase the transparency of the shadowy Court of Protection. Set up in 2007 under Labour’s Mental Capacity Act, it gave the state draconian powers to intervene in the lives of those deemed unfit to look after their own affairs.

    Controversy increased when the Daily Mail revealed last month that a woman had been jailed in secret after trying to remove her father from a care home where his family thought he was in danger of dying.

    A judge ruled Wanda Maddocks, 50, should go to prison for five months for contempt of court even though she was not present or represented by a lawyer. She is the first person known to have been imprisoned by the Court of Protection.

    Several senior MPs expressed alarm at the case and suggested the Government should review its procedures.

    Now the Justice Secretary has written to Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales, asking him to expand an existing review of the family courts to consider the use of secret hearings in the Court of Protection.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318010/Open-secret-courts-demands-Justice-Minister-Chris-Grayling-orders-review-shadowy-Court-Protection.html#ixzz2S8WeQdii
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • Don't the plebs outnumber the rest of the population? I would have thought every party wants to secure the pleb votes. Her Maggieness did. Tone did. Dave failed in 2010 and will struggle in 2015. The millionaire Jewish Islington Fabian policy wonk will fail. Nige may well triumph.
  • sladeslade Posts: 487
    No elections here so I have been out in the glorious sunshine delivering the first leaflet of the Euro campaign.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2013
    Cripes the WATO intv with the lady assaulted by Hall at BBC Manchester is eye-popping - he had the Medical Room as his personal love-nest and it was widely known. Even Giles Brandreth wrote about in his diaries. She's astonished that children were involved - she thought it was just adults.

    WTF?

    Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC
    Linda MacDougall tells @bbcwato Stuart Hall had hands all over women & was well known for taking women back to his room at BBC Manchester
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    "...the idea that Ukip will be victorious in the 2014 European elections is fast becoming the received wisdom in Westminster. More than a handful of Tory MPs, including one senior backbencher, privately admit that they’ll vote Ukip in 2014 to try to push their party in a more Eurosceptic direction.

    When I recently remarked to one influential figure at No. 10 that Ukip might come first in this 2014 poll, I was cut off with an irritable, ‘I think it’s pretty certain they’ll do that.’ I was then offered an explanation as to why this would be worse for Ed Miliband than David Cameron. The level of detail in the answer suggested that this is something that has been discussed many times by the Prime Minister’s inner circle."

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8901181/ukip-vs-the-world/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,427
    The idea of secret justice, of someone being imprisoned without legal representation, without a fair trial is horrific. Surely this is exactly the sort of thing the ECHR is there to prevent?

    Secret justice is abhorrent. I expect I will be howled down but I'm not keen on the idea of rape victims being anonymous. No other witness is; no other victim. And until a crime is proven with the conviction of the person charged, the person is an alleged victim. Either all parties are treated the same or none of them are. Skewing the rules in this way to make an open and fair trial secret in some way is very worrying.

    And - yes - I know and sympathise with the counter-arguments. But still I am very uneasy.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    And Cameron will march his troops up to the top of the hill and march them down again.

    Entirely agreed again. (!) The tories' attempts to cosy up to potential UKIP voters are only showing their own impotence, because they will still be playing by the EUs rules.

    Its like UKIP voters want to watch rugby, and the tories are offering them soccer, but with an oval ball and a liberal interpretation of the existing foul play laws.

    At least labour aren't even trying. It's much more sensible.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    tim said:

    @alanbrooke

    all will gradually water down the free for all of the noughties

    No they won't, free movement of labour in the EU will not be watered down.
    All that will happen is that IDS will make up some some statistics which will unravel and show Eastern European migrants to be the least likely to be claiming benefit.
    The Jeremy Hunt wil fanny about with some NHS form filling which will cost more to implement than it saves as Eastern European immigrants are discovered to be the group least likely to use the NHS dues to their age profile.

    And Cameron will march his troops up to the top of the hill and march them down again.

    Don't agree tim, for two reasons. Firstly the bulk of immigration isn't just from Europe, the european angle is more complex, but the people arriving from Africa, the Middle East or South East Asia aren't generally EU citizens. Secondly the UK is not the only country where immigration is an issue, intra EU migration got more out of hand here but countries like Germany aren't exactly queuing up to welcome 3 million spaniards or two million romanians.
    And what goes for Germany will go for us to.
  • RobCRobC Posts: 319
    Patrick said:

    Don't the plebs outnumber the rest of the population? I would have thought every party wants to secure the pleb votes. Her Maggieness did. Tone did. Dave failed in 2010 and will struggle in 2015. The millionaire Jewish Islington Fabian policy wonk will fail. Nige may well triumph.

    Why include Jewish?. Would you so easily have put Muslim or Black in there instead?
  • About bleedin' time
    Plato said:

    I'm delighted.

    "Chris Grayling has ordered an urgent review of a controversial court that has the power to make life-or-death decisions – and even send people to jail – in secret.

    The Justice Secretary last night asked one of the country’s most senior judges to consider steps to increase the transparency of the shadowy Court of Protection. Set up in 2007 under Labour’s Mental Capacity Act, it gave the state draconian powers to intervene in the lives of those deemed unfit to look after their own affairs.

    Controversy increased when the Daily Mail revealed last month that a woman had been jailed in secret after trying to remove her father from a care home where his family thought he was in danger of dying.

    A judge ruled Wanda Maddocks, 50, should go to prison for five months for contempt of court even though she was not present or represented by a lawyer. She is the first person known to have been imprisoned by the Court of Protection.

    Several senior MPs expressed alarm at the case and suggested the Government should review its procedures.

    Now the Justice Secretary has written to Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales, asking him to expand an existing review of the family courts to consider the use of secret hearings in the Court of Protection.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318010/Open-secret-courts-demands-Justice-Minister-Chris-Grayling-orders-review-shadowy-Court-Protection.html#ixzz2S8WeQdii
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    And what goes for Germany will go for us to.

    Germany isnt looking to dismantle the single market.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,222
    Dan Hodges:
    Ed Miliband, on the other hand, will hold it aloft, cry “A gauntlet! Aha! I have you now Cameron!!!!” and go charging towards his foe like a member of the Light Brigade on acid.
    Whatever one thinks of the point, Mr Hodges has quite a way with words!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,008
    @Plato If that is true, then the BBC has some very serious questions to answer. Allowing members of staff to blur the line between personal and professional life to that extent on their premises shows shockingly weak management, whether or not anyone at the BBC was aware of all of Stuart Hall's behaviour.

    My biggest difficulty with this story is that I keep imagining the various activities taking place with a running commentary from Eddie Waring.
  • Plato said:

    Cripes the WATO intv with the lady assaulted by Hall at BBC Manchester is eye-popping - he had the Medical Room as his personal love-nest and it was widely known. Even Giles Brandreth wrote about in his diaries. She's astonished that children were involved - she thought it was just adults.

    WTF?

    Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC
    Linda MacDougall tells @bbcwato Stuart Hall had hands all over women & was well known for taking women back to his room at BBC Manchester

    I'm very surprised Hall got bail.Surely for his own safety as much as anything else as he risks becoming a target for vigilantes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,549
    More good news on the economy as construction starts to stabilise: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10032607/UK-construction-sector-shows-signs-of-stabilising-in-April.html

    In April its CPI went to 49.4, well above the expected 48. The driving force seems to be housebuilding.

    Looking at the last year or so the three driving forces for the poor growth have been falling north sea oil, falling construction and falling manufacturing setting off increasing services and government spending. It is looking increasingly likely that none of these forces will be negative for the rest of the year and by the end of the year they may even by adding to the party.

    If so growth is going to well over the forecast. The NIER upward revision of growth today is likely to be the first of many. Hopefully, this will give the government a better press and make the irrelevancy of Labour even more apparent. We shall see.
  • Cyclefree said:

    The idea of secret justice, of someone being imprisoned without legal representation, without a fair trial is horrific. Surely this is exactly the sort of thing the ECHR is there to prevent?

    Secret justice is abhorrent. I expect I will be howled down but I'm not keen on the idea of rape victims being anonymous. No other witness is; no other victim. And until a crime is proven with the conviction of the person charged, the person is an alleged victim. Either all parties are treated the same or none of them are. Skewing the rules in this way to make an open and fair trial secret in some way is very worrying.

    And - yes - I know and sympathise with the counter-arguments. But still I am very uneasy.

    This government is the most pro-secret justice since the days of the prerogative courts of Charles I. It has introduced closed material procedures into all civil claims bar inquests in all three jurisdictions, a move repugnant to the common law principles of open justice and the equality of arms between parties. The LC may make some noise on the Court of Protection, but given the terms of the Justice and Security Act 2013, it is hypocritical at best.

    That the courts should have summary power to imprison for contempt is self-evident. The legal system could not function without it. The summary power is to be used sparingly, and the usual course is for the Attorney General to move a motion for committal before a Divisional Court under RSC 54. Criminal contempt is not an offence where a trial on indictment is necessary or desirable.

    Juvenile witnesses and defendants have statutory anonymity under the terms of section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. nevertheless, it is true that it is very difficult to justify anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases in principle.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    taffys said:

    Whatever Cameron says on immigration he can never win that bidding war with Farage.

    Entirely agreed. And voters know this. So trying to buy them off looks more insulting than sticking to your policies and explaining them.

    He doesn't need to win it. He just needs a strong enough bid to assuage voters concerns. I accept that he can't do this while we stay in the EU, however, and ~40% (or whatever it is) of immigration we don't have any control over.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    @alanbrooke

    And what goes for Germany will go for us to.

    Of course, a belief in the free movement of labour.

    The rest of your point revolves around cutting back on students numbers further.

    As I said Germany will make the free movement of Labour less free, the german public is not open to mass movement at a time when it is paying to keep the Medlanders at home. As for your point on students I didn't notice too many when I last passed through Sparkbrook.
  • samsam Posts: 727
    RobC said:

    Patrick said:

    Don't the plebs outnumber the rest of the population? I would have thought every party wants to secure the pleb votes. Her Maggieness did. Tone did. Dave failed in 2010 and will struggle in 2015. The millionaire Jewish Islington Fabian policy wonk will fail. Nige may well triumph.

    Why include Jewish?. Would you so easily have put Muslim or Black in there instead?
    How long has Ed Miliband been a black muslim?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    tim said:

    Largely Tories who voted for Thatcher, and Major in 1992.
    That's why the Etonian Chumocracy tag is so toxic for Cameron.

    Nah, the best parallel for UKIP is Poujadism.

    It's a relatively incoherent scream of frustration arising from many things: a rational fear of the future (increasing competition from low cost workers [immigration], disintermediation of the skilled working classes), a sense that they are losing their place in society and a belief that the government isn't concerned about their fate.

    Ultimately where there is a sense of disconnection there is very little that the government can do: it can try to address the issues (within the constraints of what is achievable) but then the fear will latch onto a new cause. Fundamentally, from that perspective, it's more of an emotional than an intellectual appeal.

    To be fair to UKIP, many of the issues they have identified are very reasonable and need to be addressed - Labour had a bad habit of just looking at aggregate national or group statistics without considering the impact on individuals who found their lives upended for "the greater good". But I don't think they can be fixed to UKIP's satisfaction.

    Ultimately this means the "Chumocracy" tag as you put it is irrelevant. No one in government - not Cameron, not Miliband, not Clegg, May, Hague or even Thatcher could appeal to the red mist.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 15,861
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    Ukip : "Working class in work" would be a better description - I'd bet mostly private sector too.

    The biggest single chunk weren't working, they were pensioners.

    Another example of PB Tory anecdote vs polling

    You think the biggest % is retired civil servants ? I'd include ex military as another large %.

    I guess to you tim they are all racists anyway and should be ignored.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    Ukip : "Working class in work" would be a better description - I'd bet mostly private sector too.

    The biggest single chunk weren't working, they were pensioners.

    Another example of PB Tory anecdote vs polling

    Lots of the over 60's work, these days, and the number is growing.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Ukip is changing as a party. It is becoming a more hard-headed, pragmatic outfit. Farage warns that ‘You don’t want to have policies that distract from your main objectives in life.’ He wants to drop the 2010 proposal for a flat tax, which is attacked by both Labour and the Lib Dems as a policy that would see the poor pay more and the rich less. He plans to replace it with a two-rate tax system, with one set at 40p, which will, in Farage’s words, be ‘seen to be fairer’.

    This is a very, very good idea. It would still be a huge simplification of the tax system, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as regressive. UKIP need to be smarted about addressing other attacks too. It would also be smart to rethink their policy on fiscal policy, which Labour are also attacking them for. One way to square the circle is to promise to invest more on "sensible infrastructure projects". That gives them a rebut against the cuts argument, while also allows them to oppose individual projects that prove unpopular/unwise.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    taffys said:

    Whatever Cameron says on immigration he can never win that bidding war with Farage.

    Entirely agreed. And voters know this. So trying to buy them off looks more insulting than sticking to your policies and explaining them.

    Although to be fair to Cameron, the policy has been remarkably consistent and relatively effective. Net immigration is now in the 'tens of thousands' as promised. tim will scream about students, but from my network in the university sector they have been largely unaffected in terms of the students that they want to attract; it's the marginal colleges and marginal courses that have suffered.

    More recently there's been a little noise on EU immigration, but not sure there have been any actual policies? Not much that you can do without leaving the EU.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345
    DavidL said:

    More good news on the economy as construction starts to stabilise: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10032607/UK-construction-sector-shows-signs-of-stabilising-in-April.html

    In April its CPI went to 49.4, well above the expected 48. The driving force seems to be housebuilding.

    Looking at the last year or so the three driving forces for the poor growth have been falling north sea oil, falling construction and falling manufacturing setting off increasing services and government spending. It is looking increasingly likely that none of these forces will be negative for the rest of the year and by the end of the year they may even by adding to the party.

    If so growth is going to well over the forecast. The NIER upward revision of growth today is likely to be the first of many. Hopefully, this will give the government a better press and make the irrelevancy of Labour even more apparent. We shall see.

    North sea oil output seems set to rise strongly for the next four years or so. I agree that growth this year will exceed recent predictions.

  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,514
    Socrates said:

    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    If faced with choosing between Cameron or Farage to have on, the tv channels will tell Farage he'll have to watch it on tv.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    As I said Germany will make the free movement of Labour less free

    This is the kind of claim that's made for a poorly drafted and misunderstood pbc wager ;)
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724

    Plato said:

    Cripes the WATO intv with the lady assaulted by Hall at BBC Manchester is eye-popping - he had the Medical Room as his personal love-nest and it was widely known. Even Giles Brandreth wrote about in his diaries. She's astonished that children were involved - she thought it was just adults.

    WTF?

    Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC
    Linda MacDougall tells @bbcwato Stuart Hall had hands all over women & was well known for taking women back to his room at BBC Manchester

    I'm very surprised Hall got bail.Surely for his own safety as much as anything else as he risks becoming a target for vigilantes.
    TBH, I'd suspect Mr Hall would be more at risk inside - jailbirds aren't well known for their sympathy for child sex crime inmates. They occupy a special place in Hell on the gaoled pecking order. They're even more despised than bent coppers.

    No one will stand up for them.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Largely Tories who voted for Thatcher, and Major in 1992.
    That's why the Etonian Chumocracy tag is so toxic for Cameron.

    Nah, the best parallel for UKIP is Poujadism.
    UKIP is not anti-semitic, pro-colonialism, anti-industrialisation or anti-cities.

    It's a barmy comparison.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @GarethOfTheVale

    That article I mentioned

    "As a long-term prisoner, I have spent many years of my life in a variety of British prisons, including maximum security. From my experience, I would say that, for the most part, prisoners are treated with humanity and respect by the authorities.

    Positive opportunities, however, are only available once the prisoner has come to terms with the fact that he is living in a bleak, lonely, hostile world where the stench of menace permeates prison-grey skin, and where the threat of violence regularly manifests in dark corners. It is a world where "justice" is indeed rough. The killing of Jeffrey Dahmer, beaten to death by one of his fellow prisoners, highlighted the fact that serving time can be a dangerous business.

    What about honour among thieves? The idea behind this proposition is that those involved in crime, or those in prison, have a set of pseudo-honourable values in common. In fact, the modern-day criminal code involves little in the way of honour, and probably reflects the demise of a creditable value system in the outside world.

    Among the population of any British prison there exists a hierarchy, a pecking order. Far from being rigid, it is movable and dynamic. There are constant power struggles as those in the middle vie for more status. Life is indeed a case of the survival ofthe fittest. Sid, a friend, described his existence in jail as "a war of survival".

    It does not automatically follow that the strong and intelligent are at the top of the hierarchy and the weak and slow are at the bottom. A strong intelligent man would be disqualified from his natural position in the pecking order if, for example, it was discovered that he was a rapist or a child molester. A person who appeared weak and perhaps not so bright could be elevated to the upper echelons of the hierarchy if his crime was bank or security van robbery. The type of crime a person has committed i s the greatest determining factor of where the person finds himself positioned within the hierarchy.

    Lowest on the list are sex offenders, or "nonces". Offences against children are the worst. Those who commit them are the most reviled. They live in constant fear of attack, of being scalded with sugared hot water or being slashed with home-made tools.

    Rapists come next, along with people who attack elderly folk. At the top of the hierarchy is the armed robber. He is the aristocrat of the community and the sex offenders are the serfs. Between them is a whole plethora of types of offender; from fraudster s and thieves, to those who have committed grievous bodily harm (violence rates highly). Murderers are relatively exempt from the pecking order unless they also happen to be sex offenders or armed robbers, in which case they will be at the bottom or the top respectively.

    There is another category of offender: the mass killer, who holds a peculiar place in the prison hierarchy. Regular prisoners seem to become confused in the presence of this type of offender. I watched as Britain's answer to Jeffrey Dahmer regularly paraded a gang of acolytes around the exercise yard of a maximum security prison, meeting any glance in his direction with an intimidating, icy glare. There were often discussions among prisoners trying to define his status; those in awe of him would defend him; those in whom he inspired revulsion dismissed him as a "nonce". He was also the victim of a savage attack by one of his detractors, which left him with a thick, ragged scar running from his right ear to the corner of his mouth. This event immediately established the reputation of his attacker.

    The 10 months that Frederick West spent on remand in Winson Green prison would have given him a good idea of what to expect had he been convicted. Perhaps the thought of spending the rest of his life in such a precarious environment was pertinent in the way his life ended.

    The hierarchy offers offenders a means of self-justification - "I've done wrong, but I'm not as bad as him." Moreover, it is a reaction to the way society appears to condone this primitive idea of the way things should be. For the British public are approving towards those who mete out prison "justice'' to sex offenders and the like; Myra Hindley gets attacked and "it's no more than she deserves". http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/rough-justice-in-the-gaolbirds-pecking-order-1566565.html
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    Neil said:


    As I said Germany will make the free movement of Labour less free

    This is the kind of claim that's made for a poorly drafted and misunderstood pbc wager ;)
    Oi Paddy, stop asking, Mrs Merkel will tell you what you can have when she's ready ;-)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,345
    tim said:

    Largely Tories who voted for Thatcher, and Major in 1992.
    That's why the Etonian Chumocracy tag is so toxic for Cameron.

    And, a lot of them will have voted Labour between 1997 and 2005.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    Socrates said:

    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    You really think a Prime Ministerial debate without the Prime Minister would happen?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    @Alanbrooke

    You've not been paying attention. We have Frau Merkel exactly where we want her. Avery will explain.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 15,753
    tim said:

    @alanbrooke

    "Germany will make the free movement of Labour less free"

    No they won't.
    And they've got a demographic time bomb which they hope to diffuse by rising immigration.

    389,000 more immigrants last year to Germany

    demographic timebomb. You seriously think that's a factor, lol ? They'll just keep automating, then you don't need shit cheap labour, their factories and offices have been doing it for years, that's why they're more efficient than us.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    tim said:

    @Charles

    Net immigration is now in the 'tens of thousands' as promised.

    Don't be silly.

    It's from memory, but definitely recall a BBC news piece 6m? ago saying that (at least) it was firmly heading in that direction.

    Care to post some stats that disprove it?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,514
    Plato said:

    Plato said:

    Cripes the WATO intv with the lady assaulted by Hall at BBC Manchester is eye-popping - he had the Medical Room as his personal love-nest and it was widely known. Even Giles Brandreth wrote about in his diaries. She's astonished that children were involved - she thought it was just adults.

    WTF?

    Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC
    Linda MacDougall tells @bbcwato Stuart Hall had hands all over women & was well known for taking women back to his room at BBC Manchester

    I'm very surprised Hall got bail.Surely for his own safety as much as anything else as he risks becoming a target for vigilantes.
    TBH, I'd suspect Mr Hall would be more at risk inside - jailbirds aren't well known for their sympathy for child sex crime inmates. They occupy a special place in Hell on the gaoled pecking order. They're even more despised than bent coppers.

    No one will stand up for them.

    At the rate things are going there'll be a dedicated prison wing of sex offending TV personalities.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    They occupy a special place in Hell on the gaoled pecking order.

    Don't they segregate the child sex crime people from the general inmates?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 15,861
    Chortle - those Leveson loving leftie papers are top of the charts :)

    http://order-order.com/2013/05/02/guardian-uses-scrounger-more-than-any-other-paper/

    "Seemingly the entire left-wing twitterati have been up in arms this week over analysis carried via LexisNexis showing that use of the word “scrounger” has rocketed in the British media since 2010.

    You might, even if you subscribe to the Owen Jones thesis that there is a right-wing agenda cooked up in CCHQ to demonise “scroungers”, have expected it to appear more in the likes of the Mail or the Express than the ‘progressive’ metropolitan liberal press.


    "After carrying out a simple search of the word “scrounger” on each newspaper website for the period 2010 to date, the figures show that the Guardian used the word in 736 articles over the last three years. In second place is Owen Jones’ Indy, who – as he might say - “demonised the poor” 185 times over the period. Much further down come the right-wing tabloids: 76 for the Mail and 20 for the Express."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,364
    More to the point, it'd be insane to have a Prime Ministerial debate where one of the participants leads a party with no MPs. Even if UKIP bag a handful in by-elections it'd be indefensible.

    If, however, in 2015 they got something comparable to or exceeding the Lib Dems that might be another matter.

    And, for the record, I still think the debates are a very bad thing.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,514
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    @Charles

    Net immigration is now in the 'tens of thousands' as promised.

    Don't be silly.

    It's from memory, but definitely recall a BBC news piece 6m? ago saying that (at least) it was firmly heading in that direction.

    Care to post some stats that disprove it?
    Care to post some stats that prove it?
  • TGOHF said:

    Chortle - those Leveson loving leftie papers are top of the charts :)

    http://order-order.com/2013/05/02/guardian-uses-scrounger-more-than-any-other-paper/

    "Seemingly the entire left-wing twitterati have been up in arms this week over analysis carried via LexisNexis showing that use of the word “scrounger” has rocketed in the British media since 2010.

    You might, even if you subscribe to the Owen Jones thesis that there is a right-wing agenda cooked up in CCHQ to demonise “scroungers”, have expected it to appear more in the likes of the Mail or the Express than the ‘progressive’ metropolitan liberal press.


    "After carrying out a simple search of the word “scrounger” on each newspaper website for the period 2010 to date, the figures show that the Guardian used the word in 736 articles over the last three years. In second place is Owen Jones’ Indy, who – as he might say - “demonised the poor” 185 times over the period. Much further down come the right-wing tabloids: 76 for the Mail and 20 for the Express."

    I actually remember a Guardian (? - broadsheet paper at least, or a magazine) article a few months ago trying to find who had used the word most/first, and it transpired that essentially most of its use was Labour claiming the other side had used it.

    I am utterly unsurprised by the link there.

    What they should have done is seen now many times Owen Jones used it - more or less than the Express?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,328
    corporeal said:

    Socrates said:

    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    If faced with choosing between Cameron or Farage to have on, the tv channels will tell Farage he'll have to watch it on tv.
    I'm not convinced by that. If UKIP have outpolled the Lib Dems for 2-3 years leading into 2015, it's very difficult to see how it's anything other than both or neither. Since it would be almost impossible not to invite the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of a party which had over 50 seats going into the election, UKIP would have to have an invite.

    Every party leader knows that they'll lose horribly if they refuse to participate because the rest will simply aim to knock the ball into that empty net. As long as a majority of the others are up for it, they'll have to join in too.

    The crucial step last time was Sky essentially saying "we will provide a platform for these debates. You are invited and welcome to come but we will go ahead whether you do or not". That set the ball rolling and ensured the Beeb and ITV jumped on board too. As long as one of the broadcasters says the same again, the debates will take place and as things stand, Farage will be there - and so will the other three.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    taffys said:

    They occupy a special place in Hell on the gaoled pecking order.

    Don't they segregate the child sex crime people from the general inmates?

    That's my understanding - but that doesn't really change things much if they ever get a chance in general population. Being a high-risk prisoner is IIRC being a grass, a bent cop, a rapist, or kid fiddler - not all of these groups will be sympathetic to nonces either - hence they tend to get attacked unless in solitary.

    Frankly, I've no issue with a prisoner in solitary on a very long sentence on compelling evidence > committing suicide. They could do it if on the outside, it saves us money, they are clearly very unhappy - it eliminates the risk of re-offending.

    Fred West and Harold Shipman are prime examples who managed it by themselves. Both were well beyond *reasonable doubt* on conviction terms. Why fork out £40k a year for 40 more years to punish them if they want to off themselves instead?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2013
    Charles said:

    Socrates said:

    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    You really think a Prime Ministerial debate without the Prime Minister would happen?
    Of course it would. It would be endlessly entertaining for the talking heads, provide a great story, and it would be such a disaster for Cameron he'd be embarrassed into attending the next debate anyway.

    EDIT: People are also underrating how much TV politics editors like to wield power over uppity politicians.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052
    edited May 2013
    With apologies to Messrs. Cleese, Barker and Corbett:

    Tory supporter: I look down on him [indicates Labour supporter] because I am upper-class.

    Labour supporter: I look up to him [indicates Tory] because he is upper-class; but I look down on him [indicates UKIP supporter] because he is lower-class. I am middle-class

    UKIP supporter: I know my place!

    :)

  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "More to the point, it'd be insane to have a Prime Ministerial debate where one of the participants leads a party with no MPs."

    There is no such thing as a 'Prime Ministerial Debate'. We live in a parliamentary democracy, and we elect MPs, not PMs.

    Even Sky and ITV were too embarrassed to use the ludicrous 'Prime Ministerial Debate' name, which Michael Crick openly admitted had only been dreamt up as a contrived justification for banning the SNP and Plaid Cymru from taking part.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @Socrates

    'He doesn't need to win it. He just needs a strong enough bid to assuage voters concerns. I accept that he can't do this while we stay in the EU, however, and ~40% (or whatever it is) of immigration we don't have any control over.'

    At least Dave has put controls on the 50% non EU immigration which of course was bitterly opposed by Labour.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,364
    Hmm. ECB's cut the rate to half a percent. Isn't that the lowest in Euroland history, short as it is?

    Also, does cutting from 0.75% to 0.5% actually make any difference at all?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    TGOHF said:

    Chortle - those Leveson loving leftie papers are top of the charts :)

    http://order-order.com/2013/05/02/guardian-uses-scrounger-more-than-any-other-paper/

    "Seemingly the entire left-wing twitterati have been up in arms this week over analysis carried via LexisNexis showing that use of the word “scrounger” has rocketed in the British media since 2010.

    You might, even if you subscribe to the Owen Jones thesis that there is a right-wing agenda cooked up in CCHQ to demonise “scroungers”, have expected it to appear more in the likes of the Mail or the Express than the ‘progressive’ metropolitan liberal press.


    "After carrying out a simple search of the word “scrounger” on each newspaper website for the period 2010 to date, the figures show that the Guardian used the word in 736 articles over the last three years. In second place is Owen Jones’ Indy, who – as he might say - “demonised the poor” 185 times over the period. Much further down come the right-wing tabloids: 76 for the Mail and 20 for the Express."

    I can't help feeling there is a certain level of self-hating Urgh Plebs amongst the Labour Writing Cliquerati. We know well that the intellectuals like preaching to the congregation and living an entirely different Zil Lane existence with their villas, tax avoiding/will changing, Primrose Hill mansions and soft biro wielding hands as their voters work 12hr shifts scraping plates for less then a tenner.

    I have zero time for Lefty hugging of the oppressed when they remove First Class signs from their train seats before the photographers turn up, or hoover up hundreds of thousands of expenses, or turn up in a Roller instead of attending an NHS rally...

    http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01473/ROLLS-532_1473547a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4203841/Ed-Miliband-in-limo-trip-to-100k-donor.html&h=510&w=532&sz=74&tbnid=YAp5elORdQk-6M:&tbnh=101&tbnw=105&zoom=1&usg=__81kOMqQUwSTNU4wX2b5PiBkv8C4=&docid=lyhytjdiHC_P0M&sa=X&ei=bWWCUb_hMYKj0QXzqYH4Bw&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAg&dur=26

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @john_zims

    I somehow feel "We're strongly clamping down on half the problem" isn't going to be a compelling election argument.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052
    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052

    Hmm. ECB's cut the rate to half a percent. Isn't that the lowest in Euroland history, short as it is?

    Also, does cutting from 0.75% to 0.5% actually make any difference at all?

    Discrimination against savers!
  • samsam Posts: 727
    Plato said:

    TGOHF said:

    Chortle - those Leveson loving leftie papers are top of the charts :)

    http://order-order.com/2013/05/02/guardian-uses-scrounger-more-than-any-other-paper/

    "Seemingly the entire left-wing twitterati have been up in arms this week over analysis carried via LexisNexis showing that use of the word “scrounger” has rocketed in the British media since 2010.

    You might, even if you subscribe to the Owen Jones thesis that there is a right-wing agenda cooked up in CCHQ to demonise “scroungers”, have expected it to appear more in the likes of the Mail or the Express than the ‘progressive’ metropolitan liberal press.


    "After carrying out a simple search of the word “scrounger” on each newspaper website for the period 2010 to date, the figures show that the Guardian used the word in 736 articles over the last three years. In second place is Owen Jones’ Indy, who – as he might say - “demonised the poor” 185 times over the period. Much further down come the right-wing tabloids: 76 for the Mail and 20 for the Express."

    I can't help feeling there is a certain level of self-hating Urgh Plebs amongst the Labour Writing Cliquerati. We know well that the intellectuals like preaching to the congregation and living an entirely different Zil Lane existence with their villas, tax avoiding/will changing, Primrose Hill mansions and soft biro wielding hands as their voters work 12hr shifts scraping plates for less then a tenner.

    I have zero time for Lefty hugging of the oppressed when they remove First Class signs from their train seats before the photographers turn up, or hoover up hundreds of thousands of expenses, or turn up in a Roller instead of attending an NHS rally...

    http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01473/ROLLS-532_1473547a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4203841/Ed-Miliband-in-limo-trip-to-100k-donor.html&h=510&w=532&sz=74&tbnid=YAp5elORdQk-6M:&tbnh=101&tbnw=105&zoom=1&usg=__81kOMqQUwSTNU4wX2b5PiBkv8C4=&docid=lyhytjdiHC_P0M&sa=X&ei=bWWCUb_hMYKj0QXzqYH4Bw&ved=0CDoQ9QEwAg&dur=

    What if they turn up in a Roller wearing a Donkey Jacket?

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2013
    Oh James - you've predictably pressed the Disagree Button.

    Do you have real world experience to bring to this discussion of gaoled paedophiles and the HMG pecking order or was it because I made a post?

    Surely allowing a fellow human to take their own life even when incarcerated is the sign of respect for the ultimate sacrifice and personal decision.

    I don't approve of force-feeding either unless the person is well beyond totally insane. The treatment of the suffragettes and even Ian Brady are revolting.
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "to this discussion of gaoled paedophiles"

    'Gaoled'? Are you speaking to us via a live link from the 18th Century?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,514

    corporeal said:

    Socrates said:

    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    If faced with choosing between Cameron or Farage to have on, the tv channels will tell Farage he'll have to watch it on tv.
    I'm not convinced by that. If UKIP have outpolled the Lib Dems for 2-3 years leading into 2015, it's very difficult to see how it's anything other than both or neither. Since it would be almost impossible not to invite the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of a party which had over 50 seats going into the election, UKIP would have to have an invite.

    Every party leader knows that they'll lose horribly if they refuse to participate because the rest will simply aim to knock the ball into that empty net. As long as a majority of the others are up for it, they'll have to join in too.

    The crucial step last time was Sky essentially saying "we will provide a platform for these debates. You are invited and welcome to come but we will go ahead whether you do or not". That set the ball rolling and ensured the Beeb and ITV jumped on board too. As long as one of the broadcasters says the same again, the debates will take place and as things stand, Farage will be there - and so will the other three.
    It's very easy to see it. While there weren't specific debates the poll ratings of the alliance in the 80s didn't get them the media status that'd compare to them. Results matter a lot, polling very little. OFCOM will still define UKIP as a minor party for general elections etc.

    The crucial step last time was all sides had an incentive which hadn't happened before for a while, that got things moving initially. The TV stations want to get this enshrined as a regular part of elections not a one-off. Farage'll be grumbling from the sidelines.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,093
    The LAB vote in Eastleigh went down from 5153 to 4088.

    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.

    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Hmm. ECB's cut the rate to half a percent. Isn't that the lowest in Euroland history, short as it is?

    Also, does cutting from 0.75% to 0.5% actually make any difference at all?

    Yes, and yes.

    25 basis points is the normal change for a rate cut. It's much more effective than QE. Although QE is more effective than nothing.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,514

    "More to the point, it'd be insane to have a Prime Ministerial debate where one of the participants leads a party with no MPs."

    There is no such thing as a 'Prime Ministerial Debate'. We live in a parliamentary democracy, and we elect MPs, not PMs.

    Even Sky and ITV were too embarrassed to use the ludicrous 'Prime Ministerial Debate' name, which Michael Crick openly admitted had only been dreamt up as a contrived justification for banning the SNP and Plaid Cymru from taking part.

    A quick google finds sky using that very term.

    http://skynews.skypressoffice.co.uk/press-releases/items/2009-12/2242/progress-prime-ministerial-debates-–-bbc-itv-sky
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    Alyn Smith in Bella Caledonia -

    Human rights “protect ourselves against any risk of being overrun, crushed by whatever form of totalitarian tyranny” by our own state. Not my words but those of Winston Churchill at the emergent Council of Europe in 1949. He argued that “there is no reason why we should not succeed in achieving our aims and establishing the structure of this united Europe whose moral concepts will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind.”

    That the UK Government should say, as it said last week, that it was considering a temporary withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights should terrify us all. It didn’t seem to appreciate what it was suggesting. Firstly, it’s not something you just step out of for a few moments; it’s an important international treaty recognised by the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. Founded in the aftermath of the Second World War to help promote peace and the rule of law, the Council has a record of achievement which includes the promotion of human rights.

    Abu Qatada’s human rights should be respected and protected. He should be allowed full access to all legal channels to defend his human rights in the face of challenges which may impinge upon or infringe his human rights. Not only that, we should back him and make sure that his human rights are defended and that he has those legal options. If we don’t do that we damage our own human rights.


    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/05/02/the-axis-of-incredulity/
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,052

    The LAB vote in Eastleigh went down from 5153 to 4088.

    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.
    Depressed turnout usually occurs with by-elections. In percentage terms:

    2010 9.6% (on a 69.3% turnout)
    2013 9.8% (on a 52.8% turnout)
  • JamesKellyJamesKelly Posts: 1,348
    "A quick google finds sky using that very term."

    ...in 2009. By the time the actual debate was held they'd come to their senses.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,222
    edited May 2013
    @Plato
    Surely allowing a fellow human to take their own life even when incarcerated is the sign of respect for the ultimate sacrifice and personal decision.
    Most people will have a 'gut feeling' as to whether the right to die is a right at all and one's instincts as to suicide are almost immovable from that feeling.

    Personally, I ask myself, if I pull someone out from in front of a train, would they have a right to be angry with me? I think not; I do not accept one's right to die and would stop all men from doing so if I could. If prisoners are said to differ, then the cost of housing them is offset against the knowledge that they are in prison and not, as many people who commit suicide see it, free from their problems.*

    *I am loathe to make generalisations, but I am confident this one is true in most cases.
  • samsam Posts: 727

    The LAB vote in Eastleigh went down from 5153 to 4088.

    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.

    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.
    The share went up from 9.6 to 9.82

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,364
    Mr. Socrates, cheers for that answer.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,222
    Socrates said:

    Hmm. ECB's cut the rate to half a percent. Isn't that the lowest in Euroland history, short as it is?

    Also, does cutting from 0.75% to 0.5% actually make any difference at all?

    Yes, and yes.

    25 basis points is the normal change for a rate cut. It's much more effective than QE. Although QE is more effective than nothing.
    The big move is the recognition that something has to be done to improve the Eurozone's prospects. That signal is important and it is indicative of things to come.
  • samsam Posts: 727

    The LAB vote in Eastleigh went down from 5153 to 4088.

    tarleton said:

    Labour vote increased in Eastleigh over the General election in 2010

    Only marginally, a fraction of a percent.
    Depressed turnout usually occurs with by-elections. In percentage terms:

    2010 9.6% (on a 69.3% turnout)
    2013 9.8% (on a 52.8% turnout)
    Eastleigh
    Votes P&L % P&L
    LD10 24966 0.69 46.5
    LD1213 13342 -11624 0.53 32.06 -14.44
    Co10 21102 0.65 39.3
    Co1213 10559 -10543 0.50 25.37 -13.93
    La10 5153 1.02 9.6
    La1213 4088 -1065 0.79 9.82 0.22
    UK10 1933 7.72 3.6
    UK1213 11571 9638 5.99 27.8 24.2
    BN10
    BN1213
    Respect10
    Respect1213
    Others10 496 4.95 1
    Others1213 2056 1560 4.15 4.95 3.95
    100
    100



    Turnout 10 53650
    Turnout 1213 41616 -12034 0.78


  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    corporeal said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    @Charles

    Net immigration is now in the 'tens of thousands' as promised.

    Don't be silly.

    It's from memory, but definitely recall a BBC news piece 6m? ago saying that (at least) it was firmly heading in that direction.

    Care to post some stats that disprove it?
    Care to post some stats that prove it?
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/february-2013/sty-long-term-international-migration-within-the-uk.html

    "Net long-term migration to the UK was 163,000 in the year to June 2012, significantly lower than the 247,000 estimated in the year to June 2011."

    So 'well on the way' to meet the pledge (163K down from 247K) rather than having achieved it yet. Don't have time to dig out forecasts, but would assume they would show the trend continuing so pledge in achieved in this parliament.

    Having achieved over half of the target reduction (aiming for a reduction of 150K to meet the pledge, achieved to date 84K) is not a bad outcome for 1 year's work [realistically, taking over in May 2010 means you can't really affect the 12m to June 2011 numbers much]
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Grandiose said:

    @Plato

    Surely allowing a fellow human to take their own life even when incarcerated is the sign of respect for the ultimate sacrifice and personal decision.
    Most people will have a 'gut feeling' as to whether the right to die is a right at all and one's instincts as to suicide are almost immovable from that feeling.

    Personally, I ask myself, if I pull someone out from in front of a train, would they have a right to be angry with me? I think not; I do not accept one's right to die and would stop all men from doing so if I could. If prisoners are said to differ, then the cost of housing them is offset against the knowledge that they are in prison and not, as many people who commit suicide see it, free from their problems.*

    *I am loathe to make generalisations, but I am confident this one is true in most cases.

    As someone who's known a few people who've contemplated suicide very seriously and done it, the aftermath of those who experienced it as family, the various reasons for it - its very hard to be black and white about it.

    I've seen it used as the ultimate punishment by a hen-pecked husband against his wife who made his life a misery, by children who felt it was their destiny because their dad did it, destroyed a young wife who felt she'd not seen it coming and blamed herself because her new husband did it and never forgave herself and was ashamed.

    These are very different from someone who is in jail for killing several people on purpose and knowing that the rest of their days will be an endless terror of being buggered in the showers, stabbed with a sharpened toothbrush or whatever. I personally think that being terrorised by fellow inmates must be the ultimate hell with no escape bar suicide. I'd never stop anyone from making that final and rational decision.

    If we don't own our own lives - who does?
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    Making Sense of Local Elections by Peter Kellner.

    He concludes,"All in all, what voters do today will be important, both locally and nationally, fascinating for those of us who follow these things, and possibly dramatic. But if you are looking for simple winners and losers this weekend, stick to soccer, the Voice or Britain’s Got Talent."

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/02/making-sense-local-elections/

    YouGov also has Anthony Wells on, Local Elections and UKIP.

    He concludes,"A year ago in 2012 UKIP actually did pretty well in the local elections in terms of the votes they won where they stood… but got hardly any councillors because their vote was evenly spread even where they did do well (to take some examples, in Basildon they got 17% of the vote and came third, but got no councillors at all, in Thurrock they got 18% but only managed one councillor). We may see the same, or we may see more effective targetting or them getting over a critical mass of support in some councils and gaining large numbers of seats. Right now we really cannot tell."

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/02/local-elections-and-question-ukip/
  • peterbusspeterbuss Posts: 107
    included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    If faced with choosing between Cameron or Farage to have on, the tv channels will tell Farage he'll have to watch it on tv.

    I'm not convinced by that. If UKIP have outpolled the Lib Dems for 2-3 years leading into 2015, it's very difficult to see how it's anything other than both or neither. Since it would be almost impossible not to invite the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of a party which had over 50 seats going into the election, UKIP would have to have an invite.

    Every party leader knows that they'll lose horribly if they refuse to participate because the rest will simply aim to knock the ball into that empty net. As long as a majority of the others are up for it, they'll have to join in too.

    The crucial step last time was Sky essentially saying "we will provide a platform for these debates. You are invited and welcome to come but we will go ahead whether you do or not". That set the ball rolling and ensured the Beeb and ITV jumped on board too. As long as one of the broadcasters says the same again, the debates will take place and as things stand, Farage will be there - and so will the other three.

    It's very easy to see it. While there weren't specific debates the poll ratings of the alliance in the 80s didn't get them the media status that'd compare to them. Results matter a lot, polling very little. OFCOM will still define UKIP as a minor party for general elections etc.

    The crucial step last time was all sides had an incentive which hadn't happened before for a while, that got things moving initially. The TV stations want to get this enshrined as a regular part of elections not a one-off. Farage'll be grumbling from the sidelines.
    ="Quote"

    Every party leader knows that they'll lose horribly if they refuse to participate because the rest will simply aim to knock the ball into that empty net. As long as a majority of the others are up for it, they'll have to join in too.

    The crucial step last time was Sky essentially saying "we will provide a platform for these debates. You are invited and welcome to come but we will go ahead whether you do or not". That set the ball rolling and ensured the Beeb and ITV jumped on board too. As long as one of the broadcasters says the same again, the debates will take place and as things stand, Farage will be there - and so will the other three.

    I'm not quite so sure about that. Surely under the ofcom broadcasting rules I doubt if they would even allow a debate to take place if say David Cameron refused to appear with Farage. Basically what Sky did last time was a piece of gigantic bluffand got away with it.

  • peterbusspeterbuss Posts: 107
    Sorry about my recent post.All but the last 3 sentences were quote from a previous poster. To clarify I don;t think the BBC or sky or ITV could go ahead with any debate of Party leaders if say the PM refused to take part.It would break the ofcom rules.What Sky did in 2010 in threatening tio leave an empty chair was a gigantic piece of bluff.They wouldn't get away with it this time.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,018
    The TV companies would invite Farage as it would make a much better spectacle with him there rather than just the other three dullards with identical backgrounds.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,328
    corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    Socrates said:

    "A Ukip win would lend weight to Farage’s demands to be included in the TV debates at the general election. This is a thought that fills the Tories with horror. When I asked one confidant of the Prime Minister if Cameron would take part if Ukip was included, the response was simple: ‘God, no.’"

    They really can be inept with regards to political strategy, can't they? Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and Nigel Farage attacking the Tories from all side with no rebutting of their points. Genius.

    If faced with choosing between Cameron or Farage to have on, the tv channels will tell Farage he'll have to watch it on tv.
    I'm not convinced by that. If UKIP have outpolled the Lib Dems for 2-3 years leading into 2015, it's very difficult to see how it's anything other than both or neither. Since it would be almost impossible not to invite the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of a party which had over 50 seats going into the election, UKIP would have to have an invite.

    Every party leader knows that they'll lose horribly if they refuse to participate because the rest will simply aim to knock the ball into that empty net. As long as a majority of the others are up for it, they'll have to join in too.

    The crucial step last time was Sky essentially saying "we will provide a platform for these debates. You are invited and welcome to come but we will go ahead whether you do or not". That set the ball rolling and ensured the Beeb and ITV jumped on board too. As long as one of the broadcasters says the same again, the debates will take place and as things stand, Farage will be there - and so will the other three.
    It's very easy to see it. While there weren't specific debates the poll ratings of the alliance in the 80s didn't get them the media status that'd compare to them. Results matter a lot, polling very little. OFCOM will still define UKIP as a minor party for general elections etc.

    The crucial step last time was all sides had an incentive which hadn't happened before for a while, that got things moving initially. The TV stations want to get this enshrined as a regular part of elections not a one-off. Farage'll be grumbling from the sidelines.
    Results do indeed matter, which is presumably why UKIP has gone all-out to stand in as many local council elections today as possible. In parliamentary elections, their record is superior to the Lib Dems this parliament overall in net terms, and by most measures, in gross terms. Pretty much everyone expects UKIP to outpoll the Lib Dems in the Euro-elections next year, most expect them to outpoll the Tories, and there's an outside chance they may outpoll Labour too. Do these results not matter at all, or are elections to be permanently viewed through a prism set 5 years earlier?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,514
    peterbuss said:

    Sorry about my recent post.All but the last 3 sentences were quote from a previous poster. To clarify I don;t think the BBC or sky or ITV could go ahead with any debate of Party leaders if say the PM refused to take part.It would break the ofcom rules.What Sky did in 2010 in threatening tio leave an empty chair was a gigantic piece of bluff.They wouldn't get away with it this time.

    The rules iirc do talk about opportunity rather than actual appearances, so I don't think it'd be against the rules themselves.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,313
    Socrates said:

    Hmm. ECB's cut the rate to half a percent. Isn't that the lowest in Euroland history, short as it is?

    Also, does cutting from 0.75% to 0.5% actually make any difference at all?

    Yes, and yes.

    25 basis points is the normal change for a rate cut. It's much more effective than QE. Although QE is more effective than nothing.
    Not necessarily at these levels - pushing on a string comes to mind
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Eastleigh UKIP share ;

    C2 34 %
    DE 30 %

    Labour's North London millionaire elite shivers.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Neil said:


    And what goes for Germany will go for us to.

    Germany isnt looking to dismantle the single market.
    No, but it is looking to reform it and to rid it of measures which restrain the ability of its members to compete.

    That is why Cameron has been fêted by Frau Merkel on bratwurst and sauerkraut at Schloß Meseberg. Cameron and Hague are her forward Panzer divisions.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited May 2013
    Well, this is a very nice surprise. On logging in to my Ladbrokes account, the balance was a lot higher than I was expecting, and here's why:

    Transport Specials: What will happen first? Bet placed 2011-07-10
    Highspeed rail expansion Birmingham @ 26.00: Win


    I can't now remember what the other options were, but, whatever they were, it's jolly decent of Ladbrokes to have settled so early.
This discussion has been closed.