UKIP - The Future - Volume 2
Discussion
Esseesse said:
Efbe said:
right wing sect of the conservatives
Really? This 'right wing' thing gets tossed around regularly unchallenged. To me their defining difference when compared to the main parties is that they're far more libertarian, not that they're especially more right or left.HonestIago said:
"Right-wing" is effectively used as a smear by the MSM/political elite, which is ironic given that most of the greatest atrocities inflicted by humankind have been the preserve of the left. The fact that UKIP is often branded "extreme-right" is laughable and such a view shows extreme ignorance.
Still waiting for link confirming employment of journalists by EU. Taking 'Honest' in your forum name at the face value, I'm sure you didn't make that up just to make another moronic post.Zod said:
AA999 said:
Efbe said:
all it can ever do is garner votes away from the conservatives, handing the election to labour.
Thats not entirely true. A number of surveys have shown that the majority voters for UKIP have come from a Labour background.There was a video interview on the internet done by the Telegraph newspaper whereby Farage was questioned about taking votes from various other parties. He answered that, surprisingly, many of the surveyed UKIP future voters historically voted Labour.
UKIP is taking SIX times as many votes from the Tories as it is from Labour (Populus/FT 16,424 sample Mar 2014 aggregate)
Mike Smithson said:
(respected polling expert) It is true that UKIP gets a lot of support from the C1,C2 and D demographic groups but not, if you analyse the data, from that many who voted Labour in 2010.
HonestIago said:
Esseesse said:
Efbe said:
right wing sect of the conservatives
Really? This 'right wing' thing gets tossed around regularly unchallenged. To me their defining difference when compared to the main parties is that they're far more libertarian, not that they're especially more right or left.What about famines in British India, in which up to 30 million died? Or the Atlantic slave trade (about 18million dead)? Then you'd want to look at the Middle East slave trade (20+ million dead). And, of course, the grand-daddy of them all, the Second World War, where between 60 and 70 million died, including the Holocaust. This is without looking at the Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the fall of the Ming dynasty....the list goes on. Then there are the smaller ones, like the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, which only killed about a million people, but that equated to one-eighth of the population - and almost all of these deaths could have been prevented.
None of the above-mentioned were by what you'd call left-wing regimes. In fact I should have mentioned Genghis Khan (30+ million dead) but that's going back a long time.
Basically, no one form of government is more murderous than any other.
Edited by longblackcoat on Friday 25th April 11:44
league67 said:
Still waiting for link confirming employment of journalists by EU. Taking 'Honest' in your forum name at the face value, I'm sure you didn't make that up just to make another moronic post.
There is a book you should read called "The Great European Rip-off", it is readily available on Amazon. The authors go into some detail about how journalists are paid to write in favour of the EU. The same can be said of "academics" working in universities throughout Europe. You can call it a conspiracy theory all you like, just shows how unaware you (along with most people) are about just how sinister the EU is and quite how far reaching its powers are. You would also do well to educate yourself on Common Purpose while you are at it.PRTVR said:
Zod said:
AA999 said:
Efbe said:
all it can ever do is garner votes away from the conservatives, handing the election to labour.
Thats not entirely true. A number of surveys have shown that the majority voters for UKIP have come from a Labour background.There was a video interview on the internet done by the Telegraph newspaper whereby Farage was questioned about taking votes from various other parties. He answered that, surprisingly, many of the surveyed UKIP future voters historically voted Labour.
UKIP is taking SIX times as many votes from the Tories as it is from Labour (Populus/FT 16,424 sample Mar 2014 aggregate)
Mike Smithson said:
(respected polling expert) It is true that UKIP gets a lot of support from the C1,C2 and D demographic groups but not, if you analyse the data, from that many who voted Labour in 2010.
Your attitude is the quixotic "I don't like what the Conservative Party is doing, so I'm going to punish it by voting for a party that says things that I like to hear, even though I know it has no hope of being elected and the effect of my vote and those of others like me will be to put Ed Milliband into Downing Street, who will do all sorts of things that I will hate".
It's childish. It is unlikely that there will ever be a party that will be electable and offer an agenda that satisfies you entirely. A rational person will vote for the party whose agenda is least annoying/worrying to him. That is called compromise. Getting on in life is all about compromise, except for young children who don't understand why they cannot have everything their way.
No doubt someone will respond that his vote doesn't matter anyway because he lives in a safe Labour or Conservative seat. That is fine, but an awful lot of people live in marginal seats and their votes decide elections.
Zod said:
AA999 said:
Efbe said:
all it can ever do is garner votes away from the conservatives, handing the election to labour.
Thats not entirely true. A number of surveys have shown that the majority voters for UKIP have come from a Labour background.There was a video interview on the internet done by the Telegraph newspaper whereby Farage was questioned about taking votes from various other parties. He answered that, surprisingly, many of the surveyed UKIP future voters historically voted Labour.
UKIP is taking SIX times as many votes from the Tories as it is from Labour (Populus/FT 16,424 sample Mar 2014 aggregate)
Mike Smithson said:
(respected polling expert) It is true that UKIP gets a lot of support from the C1,C2 and D demographic groups but not, if you analyse the data, from that many who voted Labour in 2010.
Again research shows, and sorry to bangthe drum, but proper objective academic research, shows that recalled vote surveys are notoriously unreliable, emphasis on the notoriously.
The truth of the matter is that people do not recall accurately who they voted for. Sometimes it's that they genuinely forget, sometimes they say they voted for the winners when actually they voted for the losers, sometimes they don't wish to declare honestly who they voted for rather like the respondents to shopping surveys who come up with statements like well actually I shop in Lidl but can you put me down for Sainsburys. Yes they really do behave like this.
But you post it as many times as you like Zoddikins it still has enormous failings. Sorry but there it is.
longblackcoat said:
Really? You'll be referring to the Soviet-era atrocities, certainly, and possibly the Chinese famine of the 1940s, but I think you're cherry picking.
What about famines in British India, in which up to 30 million died? Or the Atlantic slave trade (about 18million dead)? Then you'd want to look at the Middle East slave trade (20+ million dead). And, of course, the grand-daddy of them all, the Second World War, where between 60 and 60 million died. This is without looking at the Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the fall of the Ming dynasty....the list goes on. Then there are the smaller ones, like the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, which only killed about a million people, but that equated to one-eighth of the population - and almost all of these deaths could have been prevented.
None of the above-mentioned were by what you'd call left-wing regimes. In fact I should have mentioned Genghis Khan (30+ million dead) but that's going back a long time.
Basically, no one form of government is more murderous than any other.
I accept your points but Mao was possibly the biggest killer in history, it is said that over 70 million died under his rule. Stalin did pretty well on the killing front too.What about famines in British India, in which up to 30 million died? Or the Atlantic slave trade (about 18million dead)? Then you'd want to look at the Middle East slave trade (20+ million dead). And, of course, the grand-daddy of them all, the Second World War, where between 60 and 60 million died. This is without looking at the Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, the fall of the Ming dynasty....the list goes on. Then there are the smaller ones, like the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840's, which only killed about a million people, but that equated to one-eighth of the population - and almost all of these deaths could have been prevented.
None of the above-mentioned were by what you'd call left-wing regimes. In fact I should have mentioned Genghis Khan (30+ million dead) but that's going back a long time.
Basically, no one form of government is more murderous than any other.
The biggest basket case in the world in modern times is arguably North Korea, a hard-left regime where 3 million died of starvation as recently as the 90s.
FiF said:
Post it as many times as you like but it won't alter the fact that it's based on recalled votes, i.e. the basis of the survey relies on people accurately recalling whothey voted for last time.
Again research shows, and sorry to bangthe drum, but proper objective academic research, shows that recalled vote surveys are notoriously unreliable, emphasis on the notoriously.
The truth of the matter is that people do not recall accurately who they voted for. Sometimes it's that they genuinely forget, sometimes they say they voted for the winners when actually they voted for the losers, sometimes they don't wish to declare honestly who they voted for rather like the respondents to shopping surveys who come up with statements like well actually I shop in Lidl but can you put me down for Sainsburys. Yes they really do behave like this.
But you post it as many times as you like Zoddikins it still has enormous failings. Sorry but there it is.
Has any better research been done to investigate this, or is the research that Zod quote the best we have?Again research shows, and sorry to bangthe drum, but proper objective academic research, shows that recalled vote surveys are notoriously unreliable, emphasis on the notoriously.
The truth of the matter is that people do not recall accurately who they voted for. Sometimes it's that they genuinely forget, sometimes they say they voted for the winners when actually they voted for the losers, sometimes they don't wish to declare honestly who they voted for rather like the respondents to shopping surveys who come up with statements like well actually I shop in Lidl but can you put me down for Sainsburys. Yes they really do behave like this.
But you post it as many times as you like Zoddikins it still has enormous failings. Sorry but there it is.
Esseesse said:
Efbe said:
right wing sect of the conservatives
Really? This 'right wing' thing gets tossed around regularly unchallenged. To me their defining difference when compared to the main parties is that they're far more libertarian, not that they're especially more right or left.UKIP are for small government and self responsability, that's enough for me. The green crap and the EU that the other parties and married to is just a bonus.
Guam said:
In fairness Bill, this study (Fifs) has been reported widely in the media, I poted a link to one paper regarding the study, Fif then broke cover on the report and book that IIRC was drawn from it, it has been linked to several times. I saw an article on it from Reuters yesterday let me see if I can find it again.
Found it
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/uk-britai...
Thanks. It was a genuine question as I hadn't seen it.Found it
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/uk-britai...
Edited by Guam on Friday 25th April 12:12
Ok, my first thoughts before I try to dig out more... Is the research available online? Or just published in the book (So not peer reviewed, surely?). From that article there's nothing to contradict the survey Zod posted which also says some support is coming from Labour voters, just not as much as from Tories.
Bill said:
Guam said:
In fairness Bill, this study (Fifs) has been reported widely in the media, I poted a link to one regarding the study, Fif then broke cover on the report and book that IIRC was drawn from it, it has been linked to several times. I saw an article on it from Reuters yesterday let me see if I can find it again.
Found it
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/uk-britai...
Thanks. It was a genuine question as I hadn't seen it.Found it
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/uk-britai...
Edited by Guam on Friday 25th April 12:12
Guam said:
In fairness Bill, this study (Fifs) has been reported widely in the media, I posted a link to one paper regarding the study, Fif then broke cover on the report and book that IIRC was drawn from it, it has been linked to several times. I saw an article on it from Reuters yesterday let me see if I can find it again.
Found it
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/uk-britai...
Thanks. That is interesting, but it does not support the hypothesis that UKIP is attracting as many (ior even more) Labour voters as Conservative.Found it
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/uk-britai...
Edited by Guam on Friday 25th April 12:12
Edited by Guam on Friday 25th April 12:15
The Guardian review of the book makes for interesting reading, especially this:
"But there are some caveats. The data on which Ford and Goodwin base their analysis of Ukip voters consists, as they acknowledge, of people who intend to vote Ukip, rather than those who have. On the occasions when Ukip's vote increases dramatically (such as in European elections) their new or temporary voters are more likely to be middle-class, financially secure and from Conservative backgrounds. And, while Ukip did indeed attract more former Labour voters during the later New Labour years, they have won a substantially higher proportion of Tory voters since the coalition came to power."
"But there are some caveats. The data on which Ford and Goodwin base their analysis of Ukip voters consists, as they acknowledge, of people who intend to vote Ukip, rather than those who have. On the occasions when Ukip's vote increases dramatically (such as in European elections) their new or temporary voters are more likely to be middle-class, financially secure and from Conservative backgrounds. And, while Ukip did indeed attract more former Labour voters during the later New Labour years, they have won a substantially higher proportion of Tory voters since the coalition came to power."
And there are some points in the FT review some might find challenging: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c47ff0f2-a9e9-11e3-8bd6-...
HonestIago said:
There is a book you should read called "The Great European Rip-off", it is readily available on Amazon. The authors go into some detail about how journalists are paid to write in favour of the EU. The same can be said of "academics" working in universities throughout Europe. You can call it a conspiracy theory all you like, just shows how unaware you (along with most people) are about just how sinister the EU is and quite how far reaching its powers are. You would also do well to educate yourself on Common Purpose while you are at it.
Quick google about the author of the book as you take as the source. His personal website http://www.snouts-in-the-trough.com/
Other titles available from the same author;
Greed unlimited - how bankers and political elites are fleecing unsuspecting British public
Don't Buy It! - The tricks and traps salespeople use and how to beat them
Rip OFF! - The scandalous inside story of the consulting money machine.
In web form;
NHS - The killing machine is live and well!
I like book titles with exclamation markets, they kind of make you salivating at the prospect of some nefarious activity being exposed.
That is your source? Credible source for the stupendous statement that journos are in the EU pocket. One thing seems certain. You seem to be prime audience for this type of books; marginalized, angry and not particularly clever. Above all, it's always someone else's fault for all your failings. Not forgetting academics (your use of quotation marks here is quite puzzling). They are all in on the "gravy train" (here, that's how you use quotations marks). Is that the same train used by MEPs? Different carriage?
Nevertheless, quite entertaining.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff