UKIP - The Future - Volume 3
Discussion
Guam said:
FiF said:
Phew don't have to start making pastry and baking humble pie.
Looked at the data.
Almost the entire UKIP lead effectively relies on getting 2010 non voters to turn out on a late November by-election. That's not going to be easy.
Secondly the over 65 group, usually best for UKIP support only leads by 1%.
Thirdly Cons doing well in socio- economic groups AB.
Finally less good news for Cons is that people are viewing the senior politician blitzing as evidence that Cons are desperate and running scared. Reflects some comments on here.
So still closer than that poll result suggests is my analysis for Rochester, i.e. a knife edge and 2015GE prediction stays for the moment at 3-6 possibly 10.
Indeed thats the precise Caveat I stated earlier, getting that vote out is what will prove really intriguing, if they pull that off (however unlikely I might feel it is), that will certainly be a game changer.Looked at the data.
Almost the entire UKIP lead effectively relies on getting 2010 non voters to turn out on a late November by-election. That's not going to be easy.
Secondly the over 65 group, usually best for UKIP support only leads by 1%.
Thirdly Cons doing well in socio- economic groups AB.
Finally less good news for Cons is that people are viewing the senior politician blitzing as evidence that Cons are desperate and running scared. Reflects some comments on here.
So still closer than that poll result suggests is my analysis for Rochester, i.e. a knife edge and 2015GE prediction stays for the moment at 3-6 possibly 10.
1. A lot of 2010 Cons and middle class (AB) voters saying "dk" - key target for Cons
2.2. Nearly 30% of 2010 Lab and LD voters in Rochester backing UKIP - Lab candidate will need to challenge for these. Can UKIP hold them?
3. Plenty of DK's to win over - 16% of overall sample, with large numbers in all demographics (2010 Cons and 2010 LDs will be key battles)
4. Very high contact rates being reported - shows its an intense fight - but Con lead UKIP on this measure yet still trail overall. Only 30% contact rates for Labour, given in it seems. As for UKIP only second time in its history is it using voter ID for campaigning. Tories clearly thought it would be Newark all over again, finding UKIP have changed the game and shifted gears.
Very interesting
Edited by FiF on Thursday 23 October 13:10
Wombat3 said:
Personally I don't see how full free movement can ever be made to work. It needs to be qualified & quota'd in order to protect the indigenous populations to some degree - and that means not just protecting their jobs, but protecting the infrastructure and services (that they have paid for) from being overloaded as some of ours clearly now are.
Why do you need to protect the indigenous population? They gain by having free movement as well.As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
The Conservatives are heading for another humiliating defeat at the hands of UKIP
"If the Tories lose, some of their MPs may try to oust Mr Cameron by forcing a party leadership contest. But Cameron allies doubt his critics would split the party six months before a general election."
That depends on how many more defections follow another defeat.
"If the Tories lose, some of their MPs may try to oust Mr Cameron by forcing a party leadership contest. But Cameron allies doubt his critics would split the party six months before a general election."
That depends on how many more defections follow another defeat.
Mrr T said:
Why do you need to protect the indigenous population? They gain by having free movement as well.
As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
Are you serious?As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
Ok, start with housing, why do you think adding another 300,000 people (on top of the UK birth rate) is not exasperating this?
Then we get to schools, NHS, roads, power, etc etc.
Mrr T said:
Wombat3 said:
Personally I don't see how full free movement can ever be made to work. It needs to be qualified & quota'd in order to protect the indigenous populations to some degree - and that means not just protecting their jobs, but protecting the infrastructure and services (that they have paid for) from being overloaded as some of ours clearly now are.
Why do you need to protect the indigenous population? They gain by having free movement as well.As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
The notion of free movement will only work when conditions, services, markets, employment prospects, income levels etc are the same all over the EU. It will never happen which means we, a relatively prosperous and successful country, will always have more people coming than going. Some of those who come will contribute, but not all.
Plenty of our infrastructure and services are overloaded generally, adding yet people is not helping. If we had the spare capacity in this country in services, housing, transport etc etc there wouldn't even be a debate about this. The fact is we don't have that spare capacity on many levels.
turbobloke said:
The Conservatives are heading for another humiliating defeat at the hands of UKIP
"If the Tories lose, some of their MPs may try to oust Mr Cameron by forcing a party leadership contest. But Cameron allies doubt his critics would split the party six months before a general election."
That depends on how many more defections follow another defeat.
On that subject rumours surfacing of another defection looming. "If the Tories lose, some of their MPs may try to oust Mr Cameron by forcing a party leadership contest. But Cameron allies doubt his critics would split the party six months before a general election."
That depends on how many more defections follow another defeat.
UKIP PPC for Basildon and East Thurrockhas been deselected. He is quite OK with that, doesn't appear to be for any misdemeanour, though in the usual snidey way of local Labourites, the worst they can say is he's not pulled any trees up as a councillor and UKIP vote according to their views and not to the party whip.
Anyway rumoured being vacated for a high profile candidate / defection?
Edited by FiF on Thursday 23 October 14:14
For the avoidance of doubt - Yes I was being sarcastic.
This is a real barrel scraper of a story. He's 4th generation, so 1/32nd "foreign." I suspect there will be other foreign blood in there too if you dig deep enough. And anyway who cares? Even if he'd just got UK citizenship yesterday he can think, vote and stand for whatever the hell he likes.
This is a real barrel scraper of a story. He's 4th generation, so 1/32nd "foreign." I suspect there will be other foreign blood in there too if you dig deep enough. And anyway who cares? Even if he'd just got UK citizenship yesterday he can think, vote and stand for whatever the hell he likes.
Mrr T said:
Why do you need to protect the indigenous population? They gain by having free movement as well.
As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
Give me an annual figure which would be the tipping point. Your idea that 0.5% is fine is meaningless unless you can show that even that figure is easily accommodated and sustainable. 2% is also a small number , but does that mean 1.2M a year is no problem too ?As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
I do wonder if in ten years time after each year of you advocating that 300k/0.5% is no problem, you would have the honesty to turn around and say that the number does need to come down. I'm not sure you do.
I simply can't work out why anyone wouldn't want sensible controls in place to be able to manage it year on year and plan long term. I thought that's what government is for.
There is a sensible number of immigration that the UK wants and needs, I'd say that number is easily filled by chosen non-EU numbers where it can be filled by skilled and short and long benefits to the country. What we have now is tens of thousands or more likely , hundreds of thousands of unskilled EU migrants who are not even a short term benefit to the UK and would be a massive drain long term.
Cameron’s pro-EU comments redacted online
FT said:
David Cameron’s promise that he would campaign “with all my heart and soul” for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union does not appear in an official Downing Street account of his seminal 2013 speech on Europe.
Mr_B said:
Mrr T said:
Why do you need to protect the indigenous population? They gain by having free movement as well.
As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
Give me an annual figure which would be the tipping point. Your idea that 0.5% is fine is meaningless unless you can show that even that figure is easily accommodated and sustainable. 2% is also a small number , but does that mean 1.2M a year is no problem too ?As for infrastructure I am not suggesting free movement other than within the EU, so the numbers are relatively small. Net figure is about 300k so less than 0.5% per year.is only
If planning is so hard are you suggesting we should not have free movement within the UK!!!!
Which infrastructure is over loaded by EU immigration?.
I do wonder if in ten years time after each year of you advocating that 300k/0.5% is no problem, you would have the honesty to turn around and say that the number does need to come down. I'm not sure you do.
I simply can't work out why anyone wouldn't want sensible controls in place to be able to manage it year on year and plan long term. I thought that's what government is for.
There is a sensible number of immigration that the UK wants and needs, I'd say that number is easily filled by chosen non-EU numbers where it can be filled by skilled and short and long benefits to the country. What we have now is tens of thousands or more likely , hundreds of thousands of unskilled EU migrants who are not even a short term benefit to the UK and would be a massive drain long term.
What drives me to distraction is the insistence that because there have always been immigrants to the British Isles over previous centuries/millenia (including Farage's ancestors!) that any amount of immigration in modern times MUST therefore be acceptable.
Common sense dictates that a country can only absorb a certain % of immigrants at any one time without there being profound changes in the fabric of society to the detriment of the established population. Immigration levels of the 1950s were in all likelihood sustainable, levels post-1997 are not.
UKIP are not espousing "politics of fear" or "division" as hysterical lefties proclaim, merely the politics of having a degree of the aforementioned common sense. UKIP are NOT anti-foreigner and are NOT blaming all society's ills on foreigners either as I've often read, or words to that effect.
There is a reluctance, among the "chattering classes" to accept that immigration, the economy, the NHS and pressure on other public services etc are all interlinked and thus focusing one's policy on controlling immigration makes a great deal of sense, and doesn't simply make UKIP a "single-issue party".
The blinkers are slowly coming down and I think that there is a reasonable chance that UKIP will be in a position to form a government in 2020. That may seem laughable to several contributors here but they would not have predicted UKIP's recent stratospheric rise in support back in 2010.
Common sense dictates that a country can only absorb a certain % of immigrants at any one time without there being profound changes in the fabric of society to the detriment of the established population. Immigration levels of the 1950s were in all likelihood sustainable, levels post-1997 are not.
UKIP are not espousing "politics of fear" or "division" as hysterical lefties proclaim, merely the politics of having a degree of the aforementioned common sense. UKIP are NOT anti-foreigner and are NOT blaming all society's ills on foreigners either as I've often read, or words to that effect.
There is a reluctance, among the "chattering classes" to accept that immigration, the economy, the NHS and pressure on other public services etc are all interlinked and thus focusing one's policy on controlling immigration makes a great deal of sense, and doesn't simply make UKIP a "single-issue party".
The blinkers are slowly coming down and I think that there is a reasonable chance that UKIP will be in a position to form a government in 2020. That may seem laughable to several contributors here but they would not have predicted UKIP's recent stratospheric rise in support back in 2010.
Guam said:
And in the most bizarre aspect of the immigration debate, this story has just hit the press, I think we have moved into the twilight zone people.
Not sure whether this guy should be jailed or given an OBE for services to the community
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526533/Jail-for-c...
Article: Mirancea was jailed for seven yearsNot sure whether this guy should be jailed or given an OBE for services to the community
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526533/Jail-for-c...
Can't you get less for killing someone these days?
Esseesse said:
Guam said:
And in the most bizarre aspect of the immigration debate, this story has just hit the press, I think we have moved into the twilight zone people.
Not sure whether this guy should be jailed or given an OBE for services to the community
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526533/Jail-for-c...
Article: Mirancea was jailed for seven yearsNot sure whether this guy should be jailed or given an OBE for services to the community
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526533/Jail-for-c...
Can't you get less for killing someone these days?
Esseesse said:
Cameron’s pro-EU comments redacted online
Perhaps his views have changed. Do you ever change your views? FT said:
David Cameron’s promise that he would campaign “with all my heart and soul” for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union does not appear in an official Downing Street account of his seminal 2013 speech on Europe.
Zod said:
Esseesse said:
Cameron’s pro-EU comments redacted online
Perhaps his views have changed. Do you ever change your views? FT said:
David Cameron’s promise that he would campaign “with all my heart and soul” for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union does not appear in an official Downing Street account of his seminal 2013 speech on Europe.
Zod said:
Esseesse said:
Cameron’s pro-EU comments redacted online
Perhaps his views have changed. Do you ever change your views? FT said:
David Cameron’s promise that he would campaign “with all my heart and soul” for Britain to stay in a reformed European Union does not appear in an official Downing Street account of his seminal 2013 speech on Europe.
A canny addition to UKIP I think; add some polish...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/...
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/...
Zod said:
Mr_B said:
You should have said something along the lines of him being forced to change his views. Not that I totally believe his public views are his private views.
He's about a year older than me. My views on the EU have changed several times over the years.Milliband dancing to UKIP's tune and making false promises now? Wasn't it his lot that opened the floodgates in the 1st place?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/23/ed...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/23/ed...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff