***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 8 *****
Continued political chat.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 19:15
|
>>For the 2005 election the following is recorded:
>>"The average electorate size was 68,492. In Conservative won seats the average was >>72,715, Labour 66,665, LibDem 69,162, Plaid Cymru 44,296, and SNP 58,448".
>>That means for example that Plaid Cymru have the best advantage, folowed by the >>SNP..and of the big three, Labour have a significant advantage over firstly the Tories, then >>the Lib Dems.
All those numbers show is the size of the electorate in each seat. Without knowing how many parties stood in each seat, the breakdown of votes between them and the turnout they tell us next to nothing.
Take the theoretical example of a Conservative won seat with an electorate of 72,715 and a 70% turnout.
As a three way marginal it might be secured on the votes of 35% of those who actually voted - fewer than 20,000. On the other hand, if it were a safe seat with 60% supporting the Tories the elected member would have around 30,000 votes.
The inference that the Lib Dems have an advantage, albeit less than that of Plaid, because their seats are smaller is preposterous.
In 2010, using the simple measure of votes cast divided by seats won to determine votes per elected member the result is:
Conservative 33.3K
Labour 34.9k
LibDem 119k
I think we can all see the unfiarness there, and it's not between Lab and Con.
The problem is FPTP, jiggling people between seats to even up numbers is deckchairs/Titanic territory.
|
>> In 2010, using the simple measure of votes cast divided by seats won to determine
>> votes per elected member the result is:
>>
>> Conservative 33.3K
>> Labour 34.9k
>> LibDem 119k
How do you work this out? You've got the Labour figures muddled up with the Tory ones.
|
>> How do you work this out? You've got the Labour figures muddled up with the
>> Tory ones.
You're right, in typing my result I've transposed Lab with Con but point remains that the difference in votes per member elected between them compared to that for a LibDem is tiny.
|
>>
>> >> How do you work this out? You've got the Labour figures muddled up with
>> the
>> >> Tory ones.
>>
>> You're right, in typing my result I've transposed Lab with Con but point remains that
>> the difference in votes per member elected between them compared to that for a LibDem
>> is tiny.
>>
I'm having difficulty in working out the relevance.
Can you confirm that you find it unacceptable that:
- for one election, Party A gets 9.5 million votes and wins a comfortable outright majority, whereas Party B at the next election gets over 10.5 million votes but has to form a coalition because it has no majority?
- and Party C has 2/3rds of the votes of Party A at the first election, but only gets about a 1/6th of the MP's of Party A...and at the next election increases its votes by about a million, but has 5 less seats.
|
>>
>> I'm having difficulty in working out the relevance.
The relevance is that the equal sized constituencies thing, already enacted into legislation, is being sold as being about fairness. In fact it only has a real effect between Labour and Conservative www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2013.html. It doesn't affect the massive unfairness which is that it takes 3 times as many votes to elect a Lib Dem MP as a Labour or Tory one.
>> Can you confirm that you find it unacceptable that:
>>
>> - for one election, Party A gets 9.5 million votes and wins a comfortable outright
>> majority, whereas Party B at the next election gets over 10.5 million votes but has
>> to form a coalition because it has no majority?
>> - and Party C has 2/3rds of the votes of Party A at the first
>> election, but only gets about a 1/6th of the MP's of Party A...and at the
>> next election increases its votes by about a million, but has 5 less seats.
We don't elect on the popular vote but by geographically based constituency and using first past the post. The numbers you mention are a consequence of that. Equal sized constituencies appear to resolve the first but leave the second, much bigger, issue untouched. No other country has tried this without also invoking some form of PR blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/6556
Furthermore, the new boundaries would be based on registered voters rather than population. The percentage of the population registered to vote varies by a significant margin across the country. Higher in places with a stable population (which tend to be smaller town/rural and Conservative). Lower in inner city areas and, perhaps declining, industrial towns where the population is more transient. In another linked change the compulsion on householders to register occupants is being removed and replaced with voluntary 'rolling registration'.
I'm sorry but the whole set up stinks of the Tories using the language of fairness to mask naked political partisanship.
The new boundaries have been postponed until 2018 following a major argument between Cameron and Clegg over the way the Tories refused to progress Lords reform and allegedly manipulated the campaign in the referendum on Alternative Vote. The proposed boundaries were though published before the plug was pulled.
The effect of them here is quite dramatic. Ideally we'd be in a Northampton constituency as it's our nearest town and we're effectively on of its dormitory villages. In practice, since 1997 we've been Daventry. Not ideal but at least a place we know and the same division as most neighbouring villages other than the two nearest to Northampton.
Under the proposed new boundaries we'd be in Northamptonshire South a rural swathe across the south of the county right as far as King's Sutton - a dormitory of Banbury. It's an area with different issues (not for example threatened with being swallowed by Northampton or ribbon development along the M1) and we're only part of it all by virtue of an amoeba like tentacle creping up the west side of the M1 to swallow us. But as a big village with an electorate of 2,500 we're big enough on our own to be close to the +/- 5% of a typical constituency which the legislation provides as max allowable variation.
|
>> I'm sorry but the whole set up stinks of the Tories using the language of
>> fairness to mask naked political partisanship.
In your fair, politically neutral, unpartisan opinion I take it :-)
|
>> In your fair, politically neutral, unpartisan opinion I take it :-)
>>
Interlinked changes to (a) how voter numbers are calculated (b) constituency sizes and therefore (c) boundaries.
Their combined effect addresses a real/perceived Labour/Tory unfairness to the advantage of the latter while leaving the much greater unfairness between both those parties and the LibDems untouched.
Even a wholly detached observer might be sceptical.
|
Neither of the two big parties have ever wanted anything other than FPTP, nor have most of the electorate (apart obviously from supporters of minor parties).
The original comment was simply a response to your constant "nasty tories" view with no acceptance at all that the other lot are every bit as bad in most ways
>> Even a wholly detached observer might be sceptical.
but you are manifestly not one :-)
|
>> I'm sorry but the whole set up stinks of the Tories using the language of
>> fairness to mask naked political partisanship.
I was trying....and have failed miserably....to get you to come away from your team and me mine....and to see it from a middle of the road way.
If I were a Labour supporter, I too would be pleased that my team had an advantage and wouldn't necessarily want the other lot to catch up..but...
...I can also move away from that partisan angle..and see things from a balanced, fair, viewpoint.
Can you?
>> The effect of them here is quite dramatic.
Ah. So you don't like it, so no one should have it?
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 13:40
|
@WP
Let me try and explain my viewpoint again.
I understand that it is unfair that results in one year give an overall majority for n million votes to major party A and five years later fails to deliver one for party B with considerably more votes.
What I've also pointed out, and to which you in turn have failed to respond, is the much more dramatic unfairness imposed on the third party (and other small ones).
Both are products of structural defects in FPTP. They will still be present after boundary change; to a lesser degree between the main parties but in exactly the same for LibDems and the minor ones. Simply speaking the wrong cure is being prescribed The answer is equal sized constituencies allied with PR.
As long as the present govt (or rather its Tory half) dress constituency reform as fairness while ignoring the Lib Dem elephant in the room I think partisan gerrymandering is a reasonable conclusion.
In describing the effect locally of boundary changes I'm simply providing an example of how new constituencies disconnect communities and their representation. We get a Tory either way. Although I mildly prefer Dav's Chris Heaton Harris to the new seat's likely occupant Andrea Leadsom I've no partisan axe to grind.
If we'd been in the Northampton seat we might have had a Labour member from 97 to 05 though it was so marginal by 01 that another dormitory village might have swung it for the Tories after just one term.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 14:18
|
>> In describing the effect locally of boundary changes I'm simply providing an example of how new constituencies disconnect communities and their representation.
But do people really worry about that? You take an interest in politics, so you know your MP and what they are like and something about them. I'd bet the vast majority don't know and probably aren't that bothered to know or know what ward they are in? I'd be amazed if 50% in your constituency knew what areas it covered. I know there may be issues with reshaping them but I don't really see an issue with reshaping boundaries on that issue.
|
FPTP is a massive red herring which rises up from time to time and is used to argue that the world would be better another way..
For the avoidance of doubt;
FPTP is an electoral system whereby the person with the most votes wins, not necessarily with an overall majority. It usually results in a two-party system and can present an obstacle to smaller parties or potential new entrants.
PR is an electoral system where the party receives a number of parliamentary seats in proportion to the %$ of votes it received. It gradually results in an ineffective Government which can never implement substantial change.
So, for example, take 2005 (Note, that's because I have those figures. Its always the same, just the names and addresses change).
It was obviously a FPTP election, the Labour Party received 57% (An overall majority) of the seats with 36% (NOT an overall majority) of the vote.
Had it been a PR election, then they would have reduced from 57% to 36%, Conservative would have remained reasonably steady at 32%, Lib Dem would have gone from 10% to 22% and nobody else would have done a thing.
It is important to note that Labour were able to implement their policies because they won an FPTP election. In a PR election only those moves which they could have agreed with either the Conservatives or Lib Dem, or some combination of the two would have been passed.
BE CLEAR; It is no different from ANY UK election, other than the address of the winning party which changes. So don;t get all knotted up because 2005 happens to be one that Labour won.
So, which do you prefer?
A 2 party system where some of the time stuff you agree with gets passed and some of the time stuff you don't agree with gets passed, and a 3rd party can never break in?
Or a multi-party system which is seemingly fairer, but where pretty much nothing you believe in strongly gets done, but at least nothing you dislike strongly gets done either, but where endless small parties arise, barter their votes and then fairly soon fade and die?
Frankly, since I believe that the best a Country Government can do is not interfere in anything ever, I can quite see the attraction of PR.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 14:45
|
>> What I've also pointed out, and to which you in turn have failed to respond,
>> is the much more dramatic unfairness imposed on the third party (and other small ones).
Deep sigh.... I haven't mentioned anything because there's nothing to discuss...I agree with you.
|
A quote from an academic in another forum:
UKIP is incredibly easy to understand. Poujadism in a Little Englander variation. The long tail of post-imperial decline, suspicion of the foreign, the educated and the 'continental', appeals to nationhood and simple values, promising to give a certain section of the people what they want as opposed to trying to persuade those people to think beyond themselves and their prejudices. And finally the false idea that they are an alternative to politics as usual. All pretty obvious really
Cements from our resident smoked herrings?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 21:03
|
>> Cements from our resident smoked herrings?
Cements means Comments. One day I'll be fully proficient with a Qwerty keyboard.
|
|
I was looking for something concrete.
|
>A quote from an academic in another forum:
Who exactly is this academic, which forum, what are his political affiliations and what is his source of income?
Just asking.
Last edited by: Kevin on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 21:57
|
>> Who exactly is this academic, which forum, what are his political affiliations and what is
>> his source of income?
I posted it because it struck me as succinct and worthy of comment but I might have known somebody would go for man rather than ball.
He writes on Cyclechat under the name of Flying Monkey and if you read his stuff for a bit it's not difficult to work out who he is. Social Scientist with a specialism in data/information/surveillance etc and who has worked variously in the UK, Europe, Canada and Japan.
By no means a household name but I've heard him on radio occasionally including taking on Melanie Phillips on The moral Maze.
|
>> He writes on Cyclechat under the name of Flying Monkey and if you read his
>> stuff for a bit it's not difficult to work out who he is. Social Scientist
>> with a specialism in data/information/surveillance etc and who has worked variously in the UK, Europe,
>> Canada and Japan.
>>
>> By no means a household name but I've heard him on radio occasionally including taking
>> on Melanie Phillips on The moral Maze.
>>
I suppose it depends on your interests, I couldn't figure it out. I couldn't name a Social scientist if my life depended on it. Tbh until I read your post I didn't know there was such a thing as a social scientist.
|
>I posted it because it struck me as succinct and worthy of comment but I might have known
>somebody would go for man rather than ball.
Ah Bromp, you of all people should know that where politics is concerned, there is no distinction between man and ball. A situation created by the main players.
It's like the so-called Independent Think-Tanks who, when you dig a little deeper, you find they are funded in a roundabout way by political organisations.
Union-backed charities bleating about Government Cuts.
Academics and Ministers telling us that we need to accept this that and the other while conveniently forgetting to declare that they are receiving payments from big-business or the taxpayer.
I like to understand the real reasons why someone expresses the views that they do and rarely is it as straightforward as it appears.
|
>>Comments from our resident smoked herrings? <<
I dont think there is a direct comparison, all political parties have their own unique combination of factors which contribute to the philosophy. There some common themes with other movements but UKIP isnt a direct copy of any one movement or ideology.
It isnt ideologically pure, few electable parties are and over 20 years it has become more than its original purpose.
There are several strands running through the party ideology, some stand alone, some are related, such as the low tax belief that is linked to the belief that governments dont spend money very well, especially the current high tax consensus of the main parties that form the political establishment, so it ties in with the anti-establishment theme.
The immigration stance is part of a wider argument about what benefits the individual citizen, that the individual experience matters and the macro picture has for a long time been put forward as the only measure of success as a society, many individuals in certain groups felt politics had said to them that they simply dont matter.
Many UKIP voters that I meet feel that Labour especially but also the Tories are only ever about the big picture, willfully ignoring that there were many smaller pictures with individuals in them who were in a declining situation, in short, the party of the people had given up on the little people. There is an issue of trust that is a hangover from the expenses scandal, for whatever reason many politicians still dont 'get it' as far as how that looked to many voters, hence the Miller scandal played so well for UKIP even now, years after the actual scandal. You often hear it in their reactions to such scandals, more interested in closing ranks than acknowledging something was wrong.
That trust has for many completely broken down to the extent that policy changes are no longer enough, much like the ex that promises that things will be different this time, the emotional response in voter terms is of people who finally let the comfort of being in a bad relationship go, a sense of relief, many are very hopeful because they hear UKIP acknowledging those very things that for so long they were told they could not raise, they are deeply angry that they feel they were silenced.
The quote is an excellent example of the attitude that annoys many of the people who vote UKIP, the idea that their simple values are somehow unworthy, that the trendy liberal ideology is the ONLY way one should think, that if you are not a careerist and your idea of a nice weekend is not a cultural tour of London but a day at Blackpool, somehow you are a lesser person for preferring the latter.
UKIP is very strong with squaddies and often police too, the latter very quietly, they often speak as if they are the playthings of big government, at the mercy of political rather than common sense decisions, not to mention spread very thin while on the job. There is a genuine embrace of the military on a human level in UKIP, I see that all the time.
Interesting that the so-called academic thinks that these peopel should think beyond themselves - it is precisely because they feel government no longer thinks about their needs that they have retreated inward - the people who most often preach this mantra are financially comfortable, well educated and have good prospects in life, an easy place to sit and think about the bigger questions, but if you dont have those things as many, many people do not, your mind is on paying bills, employment and just generally getting by - the liberals simply dont seem to either want or be able to connect emotionally with this situation but UKIP is stuffed full at grassroots with people who do understand it which is why when we walk the streets we can connect with such people easily, we know them, we ARE them and that has great value for that type of person.
Ford and Goodwin are as close as anyone on what UKIP is about and the Little Englander stuff says more about the people that use the phrase than the people they are speaking about, it is an attempt to paint them as ignorant and therefore not worth worrying about.
|
>> ignorant and therefore not worth worrying about.
Large numbers of ignorant people attached to a common idea can be very worrying indeed.
UKIP is not alone in depending on these dangerous mobs though. Seems to be common to all political parties.
The "academic's" reference to Poujadism makes me feel a bit nostalgic. Not a word one sees often these days.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 00:07
|
>>
>> UKIP is not alone in depending on these dangerous mobs though. Seems to be common
>> to all political parties.
>>
"Democracy = mob-rule" - Discuss
|
>>Large numbers of ignorant people attached to a common idea can be very worrying indeed.<<
I can just hear a million Kippers saying " Yeah, like global warming fanatics"!
Seriously though, the most corrosive term you can use is ignorant - if you tell vast numbers of people that their views have little value and only your view, the 'right' view has value, it isnt any wonder that those people are increasingly mobilising against that attitude. The rise of UKIP has in no small part happened due to the unwitting, blinkered behaviour of the narrow minded liberals of centrist politics - and we thank them!
|
>> Seriously though, the most corrosive term you can use is ignorant - if you tell
>> vast numbers of people that their views have little value and only your view, the
>> 'right' view has value, it isnt any wonder that those people are increasingly mobilising against
>> that attitude. The rise of UKIP has in no small part happened due to the
>> unwitting, blinkered behaviour of the narrow minded liberals of centrist politics - and we thank
>> them!
>>
Well said that man. Covers very nicely what I think.
|
Stu - I wish I had written that!
It resonates perfectly with my understanding.
From knowing our branch activist members, I can truly say that we come from a wide cross section of society.The people I have met are decent "ordinary" folk - very few have had a political past, but all are truly concerned about our country.
You can mock us for our inexperience (locally) you may disagree with our views, as is your absolute right, but do not mock us for our sincerity in wanting the best, as we genuinely see it, for the UK.
|
Well written Stu, that sort of explanation is the reason neither of you should change names!
Pat
|
Here is an interesting analysis of the appeal of UKIP which reflect some of the views you express.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/05/left-behind-voters-only-ukip-understands.
|
|
Thanks for that link CG, an excellent and interesting article.
|
>>Here is an interesting analysis of the appeal of UKIP which reflect some of the views you express<<
I actually bought their book, a very interesting read it is too, alot about the ideologoical history and some of those internal changes which went unreported at the time. One thing which is never reported on strangely is the NEC which is the power in the party, there are people on it who are very influential within the party but almost unheard of outside of it - some interesting characters too - if someone wanted to understand the party more, an analysis of the NEC members, voted for by party members, would be most instructive as this is the body that decides the direction of the party.
|
They sent me one of their propaganda leaflets yesterday. I posted it back to their Freepost address.
Attached to a brick.
|
I trust you will do the same with the propaganda leaflets from Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, as you seem to be nursing visceral hatred of politicians, which needs to be assuaged!
|
>> I trust you will do the same with the propaganda leaflets from Labour, Conservatives and
>> Liberal Democrats, as you seem to be nursing visceral hatred of politicians, which needs to
>> be assuaged!
>>
>>
I just have a deep dislike of blatantly racist and ignorant thugs putting junk mail through my letter box. I merely returned the favour (I even wrapped it in bubble wrap so it didn't damage other parcels. I'm thoughtful like that).
Not sure where I've given the impression on here of having a visceral hatred of politicians. I can't abide idiots, but that's not limited to politics. You could probably describe my political opinion as "apathetic" but I do vote, albeit in the last two elections merely to spoil the ballot paper.
|
Seems to me that an awful lot of Conservative, Labour and LD supporters are playing into the hands of UKIP by trying to dismiss them as unworthy.
At the end of the day UKIP supporters are people, part of the electorate and entitled to their own views. There is nothing more likely to cause commitment to an opinion than being told its stupid and that you shouldn't hold that opinion. And mocking / laughing / ridiculing just makes people dig their heels in.
UKIP seems to have many, many quite decent folk involved. And as for the nutters, like the other parties don't have them?
My issue with UKIP is that I disagree with them, not that they shouldn't exist. And they are no more nor less laughable than any other political party.
I wish people would stand up much more for what their own party believes in, and stop simply knocking the others.
Because if everybody made their "own" party behave appropriately, then we'd all be better off whoever won an election.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 13:56
|
Well ukip had a chance to interest/impress me today when they posted a flyer through the letterbox. But they massively failed because all the leaflet conveyed to me was they knew I was fed up with foreigners in the UK, foreigners were bad and they would get rid of them for me.
Not one single other topic mentioned which rather confirms my previous view of them.
|
>>Not one single other topic mentioned which rather confirms my previous view of them.<<
I have the official UKIP EU elections leaflet infront of me and there are four distinct points on it:
1. Cost of the EU
2. The EU accounts not being signed off
3. Border control
4. The superstate subject
I dont know what you got but it isnt what we are putting out around here. Was the one you got posted to you or hand delivered?
|
Stu,
Can you scan / photograph / whatever that leaflet and email it to me? I'd be interested to see it and I doubt they'll be delivering it out here!
|
>>Can you scan / photograph / whatever that leaflet and email it to me? I'd be interested to see it and I doubt they'll be delivering it out here!<<
I dont have the technology! I am searching around to see if anyone has already taken a picture of it.
|
I have it, Mark,
Email me yr address and I'll send it to you.
landsker@gmail.com
|
Well, I take your point that its aimed at the European elections, but even so I'm not overly impressed. I assume that the style is aimed at the same audience that the media currently believe find UKIP appealing, because its a little bit sensationalist and overly simplistic.
Its verging on the disingenuous in places as well.
It'll have to be far more substantive for the UK General Election. Come the inevitable day that the Sun et al feel they've spent enough time building you up and decides its time to tear you down, which are about the only two stances they are capable of, then they'd have a field day with that leaflet.
Nonetheless, it'll probably be effective in the context of the European Elections, and the depth of knowledge of those in the UK who will actually vote.
I can't help feeling its a bit of an opportunity missed though.
As a total aside Ms. Reding is a damned nightmare. I've crossed swords with that woman several times. I just hope she knows more about what she's doing now then she ever did about broadcasting when she was Telecoms and Media Commissioner. That woman can spot a bandwagon at a thousand paces.
|
>>Nonetheless, it'll probably be effective in the context of the European Elections, and the depth of knowledge of those in the UK who will actually vote.<<
True, the point though is always to be effective. It isnt any wonder really that people have little or no knowledge of the elections or their significance, the media has spent more time covering a handful of unknown UKIP candidates than it has the big issues in the EU debate, that is unfortunately the standard of our media coverage in this country.
|
>> >>Nonetheless, it'll probably be effective in the context of the European Elections, and the depth
>> of knowledge of those in the UK who will actually vote.<<
>>
I would expect it to do well in the European elections. Like local elections it's more of a mid-term kick up the backside to the three (two?) main parties.
Irritatingly I do think that we've given too much control to the EU* but can't abide the racist and populist slant that purveys all of what UKIP stands for.
* In particular the recent change to flight time limitations. Following a successful campaign from pilots the advisory group recommended strongly against it. The solution from the committee putting it forward?
Hold the vote on a Friday afternoon before a holiday and wording the question along the lines of, "Do you agree that we should disagree to not pass the motion that doesn't approve the changes to the existing set of rules? Tick "yes" if you disagree with this or "no" if you don't".
It's blatantly - blatantly - corrupt and insanely undemocratic but we've already been promised a vote on EU membership so it's pointless voting UKIP on those grounds anyway.
Edit: This doesn't, of course, even cover the fact that it requires at least 50% of the house to vote against a motion to prevent it being passed, and at the time of the reading there weren't half the MEPs present.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 01:53
|
>> Irritatingly I do think that we've given too much control to the EU* but can't
>> abide the racist and populist slant that purveys all of what UKIP stands for.
I challenge you to find one racist policy in any of UKIP's official policies.
"Populist" means popular or finding favour with the public. Why not indeed?
Are not politicians elected to serve the populace and its wishes or, like too many, do you think the general population is too stupid to make decisions and only exists to be led by a "ruling class"?
David Cameron and his promises, eh?
The man is a weathercock twisting and turning in response to what he thinks will gain or retain him power.
First he has to have an absolute majority in 2015!
|
>>The man is a weathercock twisting and turning in response to what he thinks will gain or retain him power.
Of course he is, that's what politicians do. Find a successful* politician who doesn't.
*where pretty much the politician's definition of success is winning the next election, of whatever level that is.
|
"Populist" means popular or finding favour with the public.
Er, not really. It's used about policies or principles obviously designed to curry favour with popular prejudices. Not quite the same thing.
|
>>
>> I challenge you to find one racist policy in any of UKIP's official policies.
>>
>>
I think you're deluding yourself if you see them as anything but.
Farage likes to position himself as a "man of the people", but in reality he's that dodgy uncle who starts telling dodgy jokes down the pub. The sort of jokes that garner polite laughter but leave everyone else in the room feeling a bit uncomfortable.
The idea of Eastern Europeans "coming over 'ere, takin' our jobs" is crap. You don't get a cheap Polish plumber, or electrician, or builder, or waitress, or whatever. You get, generally, good ones. The reason they're working here and the Brits aren't is because they're prepared to turn up on time and do a good job.
We have a more fundamental problem in that a lot of the younger generation (and they're only a few years younger than me) expect to have the world handed to them on a plate, and it doesn't work like that. Look at Rattle - if he still visits here - who constantly moans about his inability to get on the housing ladder but is prepared to squander a week's pay on a night out on a regular basis.
|
|
Edit: Of course, Rattle is actually a few years older than me. But I digress. ;-)
|
>> Farage likes to position himself as a "man of the people", but in reality he's
>> that dodgy uncle who starts telling dodgy jokes down the pub. The sort of jokes
>> that garner polite laughter but leave everyone else in the room feeling a bit uncomfortable.
I think you will find, that you are only coming from one viewpoint. There are plenty of people out there who will find a 'dodgy' joke funny and can see the humour in it and there's nothing more sinister in it than that.
There are of course people out there who will have an agenda and will sidle up and use that sort of humour and viewpoint to try to further their own warped ideas...just as there are plenty of people with their head's up their backsides who won't allow themselves to go along with any humour in case it offends someone (which it rarely does).
>> The idea of Eastern Europeans "coming over 'ere, takin' our jobs" is crap. You don't
>> get a cheap Polish plumber, or electrician, or builder, or waitress, or whatever. You get,
>> generally, good ones. The reason they're working here and the Brits aren't is because they're
>> prepared to turn up on time and do a good job.
>>
>> We have a more fundamental problem in that a lot of the younger generation (and
>> they're only a few years younger than me) expect to have the world handed to
>> them on a plate, and it doesn't work like that.
100% agree on the rest of what you've said.
|
>> I think you will find, that you are only coming from one viewpoint. There are plenty
>> of people out there who will find a 'dodgy' joke funny and can see the humour in it
>> and there's nothing more sinister in it than that.
Jokes like these?
"Referring to the Olympics, Eastwood said: “Poland did well. They took home bronze, silver, gold, lead, copper – anything they could get their hands on.”
“Team Somalia – they did well, didn’t they? They had to apologise. Didn’t realise sailing and shooting were two different events.”
Implying the Midlands was mostly populated by Asian people he said: “Any Midlands people here? Wonderful! My favourite accent is a Midlands accent.” The comedian then tried to do an Asian accent and branded the Islamic call to prayer a “traditional Midlands folk song”.
From the recent UKIP conference.
|
>> Jokes like these?
Yes, pretty much. I don't have a problem with an enormous range of humour. Having been in the emergency services black humour kept us going at times. The more 'inappropriate' the better.
The secret is in the word 'humour'.
|
FYI the one we got through our door today just has on the front page:
Our politicians have allowed open-door immigration
Only UKIP will take back control.
Inside it's got a 2 page spread:
Facts at your fingertips about Britain and the EU (I'll just give the headlines):
- We're likely to have MORE jobs after we leave the EU.
- Food and fuel will be CHEAPER outside the EU.
- We'll SAVE enough to mend our economy for our children.
- We can tell the European Court of Human Rights where to go.
- We can TRADE with the world, not subsidise it.
- And, of course, we'll be able to control immigration... (no text with that one)
On the back page:
4,000 people a week come to live in Britain from the EU.
- In the EU, we can't control our own borders
- Unlimited immigration costs British jobs
- Cheap labour pushes down British wages
- Schools, health, welfare are under pressure.
Enough's enough.
Help us to help you get your country back.
EDIT: 'South East Region'
Last edited by: Focusless on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 15:50
|
Ours arrived today via our friendly post-lady.
I understand all households will get one, tailored to region, with a list/photo/occupation of UKIP's candidates for the region.
|
>>>Was the one you got posted to you or hand delivered?
Either hand delivered or in with the bulk mail. Pretty much as Focusless lists.
|
This is an EU election leaflet - not a party manifesto.
Space is short and a limited number of messages can be punched home. It is designed to grab attention and each point probably calculated to fit the average person's attention span in this instant digital age.
The cost of 1 leaflet per household is already huge, even at its present size.
|
|
I agree with AC : good post.
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 16:04
|
Just incase someone fancies seeing UKIP in positive mode ( given we are often accused of not having one ), here is something for those who like a good read and may not have seen it:
www.ukip.org/out_of_the_eu_into_the_world_report
There is a link to the full report from that page.
|
>> Good post FMR.
>>
Ditto
|
Patrick Mercer, MP for Newark, has resigned his seat after apparently admitting to 'cash or questions' allegations.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27208966
Will Nigel Stand?
Actually I think he'd have a reasonable chance of winning a high profile by-election in a seat like Newark.
He'd lose it again next May though.
|
If I get the chance I'll ask Nigel on Thursday! ;-)
We - and a good few hundred others, will be in Derby for another of his meet the people tour dates. I understand it's a full house at the Riverside Centre conference hall.
|
My personal feeling is that he would rather stand in his home county of Kent in 2015, with a good chance of winning and being in the HoC for a full term.
The media will damn him whatever he decides, though.
If he does not stand he's chicken: if he does he's an opportunistic carpet-bagger!
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 29 Apr 14 at 22:22
|
Seriously Roger, which seat in Kent might he hope to win at a GE? I cannot find one where they got more than around 5% last time out.
Even standing against the Speaker in Buckingham he came third to a local issues candidate who's campaign was so significant no trace of it now exists.
|
>>I cannot find one where they got more than around 5% last time out.<<
2010 was a long time ago, check the council election results in any given area, plus the private polling UKIP had done recently, should give a fair indication of the shortlist.
The party has risen so fast that nobody really knows how well we will do, anyone who claims to know is no more than guessing.
Dont ever think that Nigel is a fool, he will be studying detailed local election results and local polling figures closely. Many are guessing Folkstone but we will see, Thanet gets mentioned quite often too.
|
>>Dont ever think that Nigel is a fool
No, he is most certainly not a fool. "Smarter than your average bear", as they say.
|
|
Nigel is smarter than his average supporter..
|
>> Nigel is smarter than his average supporter..
>>
Edit
as are David Cameron,Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg smarter than their average supporters..
All four are richer than their average supporters as well -not difficult as all are millionaires...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 06:17
|
>> Nigel is smarter than his average supporter..
Well, I don't mind admitting that he is a whole lot smarter than I am.
For that, I admire him.
|
My crystal ball was working for once!
Nigel is not standing in Newark and the MSM have reacted just as I predicted!
OTH, he WILL be very busy after May22nd guiding (lots of - we hope) newly elected UKIP MEPs and introducing them to the EU bureaucracy.
|
|
And helping them fill out some claim/expense forms ! :-)
|
You mean accepting the absolutely standard MEP's fixed allowances, paid without question or accountability, to every single MEP?
The difference is that UKIP MEPs are required to donate a substantial percentage of their MEP salary straight back to the party.
(NOT from their MEP allowances, but from their salary - a fine but important point!)
|
>> (NOT from their MEP allowances, but from their salary - a fine but important point!)
A distinction too fine for me. They get x paid every year and give some to the party. It matters not which bit of their income they say the party donation comes from.
|
|
I just find this adulation/adoration of any politico (which is very un-British) just a little scary....
|
>>
>> Will Nigel Stand?
>>
>> Actually I think he'd have a reasonable chance of winning a high profile by-election in
>> a seat like Newark.
>>
>> He'd lose it again next May though.
>>
Downside is though that he's not local, and it would look like shear opportunism.
He might be cleverer to put up a genuine local with a lot of charisma (if any exist) and then give him a lot of high-profile backing.
That way he could cash in on the current UKIP bandwagon, but not be personally committed if the seat were lost later.
|
>> Will Nigel Stand?
No, he's just been on 5live explaining why.
|
>> >> Will Nigel Stand?
>>
>> No, he's just been on 5live explaining why.
>>
Clever chap. He's just avoided that minefield then.
|
>> Bleedin immigrunts!
>>
>> www.express.co.uk/news/uk/473156/Scandal-of-150-000-migrants-paying-just-1-a-week-in-tax
That's not an immigration problem it's a taxpayer subsidises low wages problem.
Since the figures come form Migrationwatch via the Express there veracity is suspect to say the least.
|
Does this mean the Express thinks they should be paid more then?
And if they were, it could run a story about them getting too much, and taking jobs from natives.
|
Ah yes. MigrationWatch who said the official UK statistics understated the number of immigrants into the UK.
And were subsequently proved to be correct.
Any numbers from the ONS are suspect and are usually revised heavily - upwards...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 09:23
|
I likes this comment from that Express article (some good ones there IMO)
"Teach the posh boys a lesson ... Vote UKIP"
:o}
|
I am not, and never will be a UKIP voter/supporter, but Ken Clarke's arrogant dismissal of UKIP on the Today programme this morning as a bit of a joke, and their success as a "protest voting" made my blood boil.
Love him or loathe him, Farage does seem to strike a chord with a lot of voters. My despair is that by dismissing him and his support so nonchalantly, the major parties are simply making him stronger. Or more accurately, failing to put what I consider is the right viewpoint across in an articulate and calm way that resonates with voters. It strikes me as an "ignore UKIP and it will go away" approach, which is the complete opposite of what is needed.
My personal belief is that UKIP's message is built on hysteria and very selective use of facts, but they are an increasingly important force in British politics, and this force needs to be countered if it isn't going to gain votes and popularity. Farage is a charismatic and passionate individual, characteristics pretty much absent from the rest of politics. I dislike his message intently, but it's rather difficult to dislike the man himself.
Mainstream politicians have a heck of a lot to answer for.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 11:03
|
"I am not, and never will be a UKIP voter/supporter, but Ken Clarke's arrogant dismissal of UKIP on the Today programme this morning as a bit of a joke, and their success as a "protest voting" made my blood boil."
Heard it - and generally agree with your reaction, but what do you expect from the Big Beast? His condescending attitude is what he does best.
I will admit that I shall probably vote UKIP next month, for the first and probably the only time. I want that referendum.
|
>> "I am not, and never will be a UKIP voter/supporter, but Ken Clarke's arrogant dismissal
>> of UKIP on the Today programme this morning as a bit of a joke, and
>> their success as a "protest voting" made my blood boil."
>>
>> Heard it - and generally agree with your reaction, but what do you expect from
>> the Big Beast? His condescending attitude is what he does best.
>>
>> I will admit that I shall probably vote UKIP next month, for the first and
>> probably the only time. I want that referendum.
If you have local elections in your area, you can reinforce that by voting for UKIP in those too.(Most locals are being contested by UKIP: in our area 16/16)
|
|
Persuading members to vote UKIP or any other party on this site does not necessarily reflect the views of its owner !
|
The insufferable, smug, Ken Clarke is due to be on BBC Any Questions on May 9th. It's coming from Worksop College and includes Paul Nuttall, UKIP's deputy leader, a Green Person and a Labour Person.
We have tickets arriving soon, I hope!
|
The UKIP leaflet has just arrived.
Badly executed in my opinion, in that it reinforces many people's idea that UKIP is just racist, isolationist and worse.
"Our politicians have allowed open-door immigration" for example are the first words in the leaflet.
I don't think you will convert many who consider themselves thinking voters with that tone, or with "We can tell the European Court of Human Rights where to go".
UKIP already has the Little Englanders. It needs other segments to get any further.
There is one telling partial quote in the leaflet from Viviane Reding, EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. It is reported here
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html
Farage's quote in that article is a fair proposition - ""For people in power in Brussels that is the only choice on offer, no reform just a United States of Europe. On 22 May the British people must ask themselves if they want this and vote accordingly," he said."
Maybe some Europhiles here actually want a USE, but this is the big point - political union - that the EU is actually about. I genuinely don't think people have taken this on, generally, and in the local debating forum on Monday (the Red Lion) the support for the EU was essentially from people who see it as some sort of club that they are frightened to leave; they tend to argue that we are still independent, but that rather misses the point that the the EU is about a USE and surrendering that independence, not about how far it has been surrendered already.
This is a much bigger point than who sets the immigration policy.
I quite agree with Roger Bootle.
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10793681/Without-reform-it-would-be-best-for-Britain-to-leave-EU.html
It's extremely difficult to negotiate anything, generally, unless there is a point at which you are prepared to play the cards in your hand. That means stating, and meaning, that Britain prefers exit to complete subsumation.
Frankly that is more likely than not to result in an exit - drawing the line this side of political union is unsustainable for those in the currency union.
|
|
I have lost track of Farage's parliamentary plans. Do I gather that he isn't going to stand in Mercer's seat at the general election? The comic said he was this morning, but of course that went to press last night so could be out of date.
|
The BBC reported that he's not standing.
They also quoted Ken Clarke as saying...
"I am not really surprised. Whatever else Nigel is, he is not an idiot, and I don't think he'd have the faintest chance of winning in Newark."
|
World at One reports Farage as saying they'll try and select a local candidate and throw their whole campaign resource at it.
His own focus for GE15 was suggested to be Thanet South.
|
|
Thanks chaps. Disappointing in a way, but sensible of him I suppose.
|
>> Thanet South.
>>
Fannit? Home of the Chav? What a surprise.
|
>> Fannit? Home of the Chav? What a surprise.
>>
Comment from a Reading resident, pot .. kettle perhaps :-)
|
Saith Orxfordshaire, dontcha know.
Sniff.
|
|
Ferry sarf oxfudsheer innit.
|
Well my house was in Saith Oxes when it was built, dahling. Been annexed by the Reading Chavs since then, though.
As an aside, isn't Farage a Huguenot name?
|
Your house was built before 1911? 'Bout time you bought yourself a new one.
And it was annexed by the Caversham Clowns , long before the Reading Chavs turned up.
|
|
Nah buld, there woz a two stage annexation of Chaversham. First in 1911, then there was more building across the new S Ox border (Woodcote Way 1930s estate, etc), and this lot was annexed in to Chaversham/Reading in 1974. My place was built in 1971, about 100 yards north of the border as it was between 1911-1974 - for those 63 years, on the Woodcote road the border was around the end of St Peter's Avenue, then it was extended up to Shepherd's Lane in '74.
Last edited by: Alanović on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 16:00
|
Has its current value recovered to the pre-1974 value then? It must have gone down a lot when it joined Reading.
|
|
You'd be staggered at the ludicrous prices in Reading these days. It's very sought after. Crossrail is adding to the hype.
|
I wouldn't now, funnily enough.
I used to live down the Oxford Road (no. 222 with a Kebab Van in the car park opposite, just by Reading West Bridge) and remember the house prices.
My sister just sold a similar house in one of the small roads around there and I was floored at the amount she got for it.
Makes me wonder why I ever sold anything I owned in that area. Still, I sold a Triumph 500 for £7.00, so what do I know.
|
>> I trust you'll be putting some literature through our letterboxes this time around. Perhaps even a knock on the door to introduce yourselves.<<
We received your leaflet yesterday and another of the same today. Settle down, Roger...
|
UKIP - Volume 7 - Bromptonaut
