peterms Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Clegg is a turkey with an Advent calendar Excellent image. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Helen Pidd @helenpidd Marlene Guest, the BNP candidate, is fuming at Ukip's Rotherham performance. "I'm so angry. Ukip are like us, but they just lie about it." Yes, if the BNP candidate says that it must be true. The similarities begin and end with the policy of withdrawal from the EU. Other than their vile and unique (in UK political culture) racism the BNP is the "Labour Party your grandparents voted for", as Mr Griffin puts it. Politically they are the opposite end of the spectrum from UKIP, favouring mass nationalisations of everything in sight, among other things. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 On the UKIP results across three seats (and Corby a few weeks ago) I think it shows them on a steady vote of 10-15%, the 21+% in Rotherham clearly was in part a bounce related to recent events. Interesting that they have now finished above the Lib Dems in the last 4 by elections though. If they simply maintained a stead state in terms of popularity they will cost Cameron any chance he may have of a majority at the next GE. Having repeated his "closet racist" comments of 2006 the other day it's hard to see how any rapprochement of the centre right vote is possible under Cameron's leadership. Yeah Labour winning Labour seats that they've held since people kept coal in their baths is hardly a shocker When Surrey turns Labour then I think it will be time to panic ( and also time to move ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 30, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 30, 2012 UKIP will be back down to their usual 3-4% at the next General Election. They are a protest vote party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 UKIP will be back down to their usual 3-4% at the next General Election. They are a protest vote party there could still be a lot to protest about come the next GE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Yeah Labour winning Labour seats that they've held since people kept coal in their baths is hardly a shocker When Surrey turns Labour then I think it will be time to panic ( and also time to move ) Tony - I don't remember your viewpoints being the same when the Henly by-election happened a few years back. The point was not the fact that Labour won in what are traditional Labour seats though as you know. The points are about how the relative parties performed and linked with voters. It seems that even in Rotherham where the old Labour MP had to resign to political plague (expenses) and the right media storm re UKIP and fostering,they maintained a healthy lead. The other mainstream parties, Tory and Lib Dems did particularly bad and show that they have little / no appeal outside of their core areas. Labour winning in Corby recently show that they can still say what the people want to hear if required. The Lib Dems who claimed at Henly previously by Labour finishing 5th showed they were finished must now have serious doubts about anything they can do in the future (finished 8th!!) and Clegg's time has surely been and gone. I would not be surprised for him to become a Tory Peer. For Cameron failing to win the last election was a poor effort, constant poor performances in by-elections, constant divisions in his own party and the rise of the UK equivalent of the Tea Party in UKIP seriously weakens any credibility that he still had. UKIP will be found out and their real motives will become more and more apparent and I maintain their borderline racism may appeal to some but luckily not to any significant majority. Maybe if PR had been introduced the Tory party would have been happier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 UKIP will be found out and their real motives will become more and more apparent and I maintain their borderline racism may appeal to some but luckily not to any significant majority. What are their real motives? What is "borderline" racism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 30, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted November 30, 2012 What are their real motives? What is "borderline" racism? Well if you don't know, why are you voting for them ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Well if you don't know, why are you voting for them ;-) Zing! Nah, I'm interested to know what Drat thinks their real agenda is but the implication is that it must be something bad, so if he has an inside track on what they are really about I'd be grateful if he shared it. I'm also trying to understand "borderline racism". Is that like being a little bit pregnant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 I think in terms of Rotherham I would caution any Socialist supporters not to get to carried away. This is a safe Labour seat that the Conservatives last held in 1931 - Labour were always going to win convincingly here. I think opposition parties often do well in by elections and it is unsurprising that a Governing party who is having to take tough decisions to rescue our economy have faced difficulty. Too much can be read into results like this – let’s not forget that in this year’s local elections, despite fielding a record number of candidates, UKIP made no net gain of councillors. The government's by-election position is obviously disappointing but in 1991 they came fourth in a by-election in Liverpool with 3 per cent of the vote but won a majority at the general election less than a year later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Zing! Nah, I'm interested to know what Drat thinks their real agenda is but the implication is that it must be something bad, so if he has an inside track on what they are really about I'd be grateful if he shared it. I'm also trying to understand "borderline racism". Is that like being a little bit pregnant? Obviously you are angling for something here so just to entertain you a bit I will answer your question in a fashion. Not really into playing games though so ... The borderline racist comment is something that many in the UK (you may have missed it) have accused UKIP of being. I suppose it really does depend if you have a problem with Xenophobia and see any similarities or even crossing over with racist viewpoints. Even you cannot fail to admit that Xenophobia is rife within UKIP and its policies. Or can you? I remember previously you have stated that (and the irony that you no longer live or work in the UK is not missed) UKIP was your party of choice but voted Tory, so you must see a lot of similarities in the parties and what they stand for? You may be comfortable with the similarities between UKIP and BNP in terms of a lot of their policies, I don't know. As Bicks stated previously are UKIP a protest party on the EU or do their other policies and the implications of what they are proposing now become a subject for scrutiny? How did you feel with the UKIP candidate this week and his views on Gay's? Did that fit well with a modern thinking political party and one that claims not to be isolationist? UKIP has a history of attracting shall we say some of the more obnoxious in society(Note: and you are not obnoxious by the way) (and I am sure most political parties do) but when you have certain agenda's as part of what the core value is, it must come as a bit of an embarrassment to all concerned. I appreciate that Tony previously seemed to dismiss organisations such as Searchlight, (worrying that he did but that's his choice) but a while back they said that "former racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers" were amongst candidates that UKIP put forward over past years. Surely even you as a UKIP supporter must feel a bit uneasy about that? Or is Searchlight just a "lefty" organisation? There were others in the past, remember good old Frank Maloney and his "too many gays there" comment? You may say that the party has changed but where is the evidence of that? What about the list of "alliances" that UKIp have with other far right wing parties across Europe. Are the people they are now aligned with the same that you would expect from a party claiming it is neither racist or even xenaphobes? The good thing about democracy is the fact that the UK still allows people (when you are here :-) ) to support UKIP. For many though they are still a radical right wing party with crackpot borderline racist views and nothing that has been said or happened recently changes that IMO. EDIT: I suspect that you and I would never see eye to eye on this though so not sure its worth carrying on with this as a subject? But as this is a thread about the ConDem's (remember you voted for them ) maybe you can answer me a question. Why has Cameron totally ballsed up on Leveson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 You may be comfortable with the similarities between UKIP and BNP in terms of a lot of their policies The BNP policies are socially authoritarian but economically socialist so basically socialists with a racist bent. so wouldn't that make them closer to (old) Labour than UKIP ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The BNP policies are socially authoritarian but economically socialist so basically socialists with a racist bent. so wouldn't that make them closer to (old) Labour than UKIP ? Was 'old Labour' authoritarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 From the UKIP 2012 National Manifesto - UKIP calls for an immediate five-year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement. - Return people found to be living illegally in the UK to their country of origin. There can be no question of an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Such amnesties merely encourage further illegal immigration. - Repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In future British courts will not be allowed to appeal to any international treaty or convention that overrides or sets aside the provisions of any statue passed by the UK Parliament - End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies And some of my favourites - Recognise the numerous threats to British identity and culture - Safeguard British weights and measures (the pint, the mile, etc) which have been undermined by the EU. UKIP will also provide proper support to the Royal Mail and the Post Office as key British institutions - reintroduce a proper Treason Act Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The point was not the fact that Labour won in what are traditional Labour seats though as you know. The points are about how the relative parties performed and linked with voters. It seems that even in Rotherham where the old Labour MP had to resign to political plague (expenses) and the right media storm re UKIP and fostering,they maintained a healthy lead. The other mainstream parties, Tory and Lib Dems did particularly bad and show that they have little / no appeal outside of their core areas. Labour winning in Corby recently show that they can still say what the people want to hear if required. In all three seats the Labour share of the vote went up compared to 2010. Conservative share of the vote fell to two-thirds of the 2010 figure in Croydon, and one third elsewhere. LD share fell to half the 2010 share in Middlesbrough, one fifth in Croydon, and one eighth in Rotherham. Is this unusual, given that sitting governments generally lose votes compared to the previous general election? A party's share of the vote at a general election is not always matched at subsequent by-elections, but given the five-year maximum term of a Parliament, reductions of 20% or more are unusual. I think the Wiki figures may be worked out on a different basis than mine (eg 20% drop may be from 40% to 20%, which I call halving the share of the vote). However, it looks pretty significant to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 In the wake of the by-election disasters, the Conservative Party is embracing radical new thinking to recover its electoral position. They have appointed a new adviser. He comes from Huddersfield, so he will be able to attune the party to the aspirations of people in those parts of Britain that most members of the Cabinet know only as points on a map. The genius behind this is master strategist George Osborne, no less. He has already identified the problem: George Osborne has sent an unequivocal message that Conservatives have to work harder to reach out beyond traditional voters by hiring a leading thinktank boss who has warned that the party is still seen as the champion of the rich. and the solution: Osborne is said to have been impressed by O'Brien's call for a greater focus on winning black and minority ethnic, blue-collar and northern voters. He said the government should do this by launching a "war on unemployment" by increasing working tax credits and by cutting employers' national insurance contributions for people on low wages. So the problem is that you're seen as a party of the rich, for the rich. And the answer is to use public money to subsidise employers to create jobs at the very, very bottom of the pay scale. It's a masterstroke. Yes, that should change perceptions, once and for all. Well done, George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 In the wake of the by-election disasters, the Conservative Party is embracing radical new thinking to recover its electoral position. They have appointed a new adviser. He comes from Huddersfield, so he will be able to attune the party to the aspirations of people in those parts of Britain that most members of the Cabinet know only as points on a map. The genius behind this is master strategist George Osborne, no less. He has already identified the problem: and the solution: So the problem is that you're seen as a party of the rich, for the rich. And the answer is to use public money to subsidise employers to create jobs at the very, very bottom of the pay scale. It's a masterstroke. Yes, that should change perceptions, once and for all. Well done, George. Neil O'Brien and his chums at Policy Exchange are nothing more than hacks. Think-Tanks don't do a lot in the way of actual thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 not really sure what thread this belongs in but I believe we were discussing it in here so it appears the real parents didn't know anything about the children's whereabouts until Wednesday last week , so the "tip" off to remove the children from the foster parents didn't come from them ... however it seems that one reason for removal by the council was that "There were fears the children's birth parents knew or might be able to find out where the foster parents lived" But , if I've read it right ,despite sexual allegations about the real father towards two of his daughters , that one of the children was found walking the streets at 2am and that the father held a knife to his wife's head while she was holding their baby , all of which was deemed to be a good enough reason to remove the children into care ... a judge has ruled that they should go back home because "the council had failed in their duty to ensure the children enjoyed the linguistic right to learn and speak the language of their birth" IF true , there seems to be a real failure by social services and the courts all round here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 not really sure what thread this belongs in but I believe we were discussing it in here so it appears the real parents didn't know anything about the children's whereabouts until Wednesday last week , so the "tip" off to remove the children from the foster parents didn't come from them ... however it seems that one reason for removal by the council was that "There were fears the children's birth parents knew or might be able to find out where the foster parents lived" But , if I've read it right ,despite sexual allegations about the real father towards two of his daughters , that one of the children was found walking the streets at 2am and that the father held a knife to his wife's head while she was holding their baby , all of which was deemed to be a good enough reason to remove the children into care ... a judge has ruled that they should go back home because "the council had failed in their duty to ensure the children enjoyed the linguistic right to learn and speak the language of their birth" IF true , there seems to be a real failure by social services and the courts all round here More detail here. I don't think it was ever suggested that the natural parents tipped off the council to anything. What I read was that the council were tipped off that the foster parents are Ukip members. But what is clear from this report is that the natural parents (or at least the father; the mother's views aren't reported) do object to the children being placed with this particular foster couple. He said he was "disgusted" to learn that his children had been placed with foster carers who were members of a party opposed to eastern European immigration. The reasoning behind the "cultural" point also becomes clearer: The children's parents, Roma who moved to Rotherham, told the Guardian they have been in and out of family courts trying to get their children back after they returned from an earlier foster placement unable to speak their mother tongue. That would explain why the court was critical of the earlier placement. And I don't think trying to sing a folk song to the kids will be an adequate way of addressing this. I don't see much to criticise on the part of social services or the courts, from this report. It's clear why the social workers think they kids may be safer away from the natural parents. It's clear that the parents object to the foster placement, that the courts have good reason for previous criticism of a placement, and that social services must take into account both this and the views of the parents. It's hard to see how the social workers and the courts can get this one right. There are obvious grounds for concern about the natural parents, partly based on reports which seem unconfirmed despite travelling to the home town to find out more. There is likely to be no available placement which will meet all the needs. And all the time, fuckwits like Nigel Charade are standing by, waiting to give it some. Arse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 we've had nothing in the papers for months except Jimmy Saville and allegations , and yet in this instance you want to brush it off as "unconfirmed" reports ... I just hope you are right , for the children's sake I'm not saying the father is guilty but it would appear to be dangerous to allow the children home at this stage As for the Romanian part .. the children are living in England and appear that they will do so for the foreseeable future , with respect to the parents , it will be far more important that the children learn English than traditional folk dancing from a country they may not ever visit .... My children go to Hungarian school on a Saturday , I'm fairly sure with the number of Romanians reported to be in Rotherham that these children could find a local language school to attend and teach them traditional Romanian stuff.... Both my children are fluent in Hungarian and aware of their heritage , so I can see the importance in keeping your roots , but my wife and i agree that English is quite rightly their first language as that is the country they are living in ... I don't think it was ever suggested that the natural parents tipped off the council to anything. it was suggested frequently in this very thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts