UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[FiF]

Migration watch briefing paper which shows that concerns about immigration and the belief that it's too high exists in all ethnic groups including BME voters. It also shows that the Bright Blue report which opined that Conservative voters were not concerned about immigration was as wrong as a very wrong thing.


http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....

[WinstonWolf]

HonestIago said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

As far as I can see from the article she did not say that all UKIP supporters are racist (nor that no racists vote for other parties), just that there are a lot of racists voting for UKIP

One could debate how many racists there are in the country, but I would have thought that a racist is disportonately likely to vote for a party whose main 2 policies relate to UK nationalism and controlling immigration. Now some will vote for the more extreme parties, but it is likely that many will choose to vote for a party that has a better chance of "making a difference".
So I think it would be very surprising if a disprortionate number of racists are supporting UKIP.
In the absence of any evience to the contrary I cold logic would suggest that it is indeed true that a lot of racists will vote for UKIP, and a higher percentage than will vote for the Tories, Labour, LibDems or Greens.

That does not make UKIP a racist party, nor does it mean that all Kippers are racists.

Being slightly "racist", as in to the extent of preferring to associate/live with/be surrounded by people of one's own race/culture (culture is the main deciding factor) is ENTIRELY NORMAL. People ALL hold these views if you go to ANY non-Western country, it is completely natural! It is just that in the West we are vilified by our left-wing media for admitting to feeling such a way. I would wager that the overwhelming majority of Brits feel the same but are afraid to voice such opinions. Do you think Japanese or Chinese people view white people differently to their own race? Do you think black Africans view whites differently to other blacks? Do you think those of Middle Eastern origin view other races equally? Why is it that only Western Liberals have the "right" opinion/worldview?

Indeed, is an Asian person voting for an Asian candidate on the basis of race a racist?

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

Migration watch briefing paper which shows that concerns about immigration and the belief that it's too high exists in all ethnic groups including BME voters. It also shows that the Bright Blue report which opined that Conservative voters were not concerned about immigration was as wrong as a very wrong thing.


http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....

From the link...

Bright Blue, a new think tank for “liberal conservatism”...

Sounds like something not conservative attempting to appear conservative. I wonder if Dave considers himself a liberal conservative.

[FiF]

Esseesse said:

FiF said:

Migration watch briefing paper which shows that concerns about immigration and the belief that it's too high exists in all ethnic groups including BME voters. It also shows that the Bright Blue report which opined that Conservative voters were not concerned about immigration was as wrong as a very wrong thing.


http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/briefing-paper/11....

From the link...

Bright Blue, a new think tank for “liberal conservatism”...

Sounds like something not conservative attempting to appear conservative. I wonder if Dave considers himself a liberal conservative.

Check the BB report funding. From sectors who have much to gain from high immigration. Big business and education sector with the ideological approach of the left. Biased questions with conclusions that don't fit the data.

[FiF]

Just as an update for some time now have been predicting UKIP seats at 3-8 possibly 10.

Might be about to revise that.

They're still going to create havoc. They're still going to get a load of good second places.
But how many seats. Detecting a bit of a slide, may be 1-6 range.

Still have a feeling of uncertainty that people really are pissed off with the current setup and the destabilising factor of that oaf Salmond having any pull.

It's all still too guessimetric though.

[brenflys777]

JustAnotherLogin said:

brenflys777 said:

Conservative politicians like this lady seem oblivious to the nonsense that if someone has views compatible with voting UKIP - but votes Tory they are part of a broad church and pragmatic - but if they vote UKIP those same views make them a racist!

I do wonder how common this attitude is in the conservatives?

As far as I can see from the article she did not say that all UKIP supporters are racist (nor that no racists vote for other parties), just that there are a lot of racists voting for UKIP
.

Unless the quote about what she said is false, then she said that whilst the UKIP candidate might not be racist the people who voted for him were...

'The UKIP candidate Steve Harris insisted that his party is not racist, saying that UKIP’s policies on limiting immigration are a question of “space, not race”. But Ms Drummond retorted: “Steve, you might not be racist, but the people voting for you are, because I meet them every day on the doorstep.'

Maybe that isn't what she meant, but to my mind it shows a lack of respect for the voters to label them racist because they choose to vote for a different party that also vows to reduce immigration.

[Esseesse]

FiF said:

Just as an update for some time now have been predicting UKIP seats at 3-8 possibly 10.

Might be about to revise that.

They're still going to create havoc. They're still going to get a load of good second places.
But how many seats. Detecting a bit of a slide, may be 1-6 range.

Still have a feeling of uncertainty that people really are pissed off with the current setup and the destabilising factor of that oaf Salmond having any pull.

It's all still too guessimetric though.

It think Carswell is safe, surely. The question is whether Mr Farage will win his seat.

Bookies still have him on for winning...

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/engla...
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/...

I think (not a gambler) that the 2/5 odds that paddypower give him means a 71% chance of winning. The Conservatives at 11/4 means a 27% chance of them winning. I trust the bookies far more than any polling.

Edit: Incidentally, Clacton have 1/8 odds for Carswell, so 89% chance of winning. Rochester put the Conservatives ahead with 58% chance, UKIP second (evens - I assume 50% chance). Where I live it's Lab > Con > Lib > UKIP. Fingers crossed the Libs can lose their deposit.

Edited by Esseesse on Wednesday 25th March 11:01

[HonestIago]

Esseesse said:

It think Carswell is safe, surely. The question is whether Mr Farage will win his seat.

Bookies still have him on for winning...

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/engla...
http://sports.williamhill.com/bet/en-gb/betting/e/...

I think (not a gambler) that the 2/5 odds that paddypower give him means a 71% chance of winning. The Conservatives at 11/4 means a 27% chance of them winning. I trust the bookies far more than any polling.

Surely bookies must use polling of sorts?

[Esseesse]

HonestIago said:

Surely bookies must use polling of sorts?

Yes, but they have a financial incentive to report accurate odds surely? Their whole business centres around being right.

[HonestIago]

Esseesse said:

HonestIago said:

Surely bookies must use polling of sorts?

Yes, but they have a financial incentive to report accurate odds surely? Their whole business centres around being right.

Going by Ladbrokes UKIP vote share odds (well worth a punt IMO), they seem to expect UKIP to get 10-15% of the vote and are thus offering fairly long odds on them getting higher shares of the vote. From this I can only conclude Ladbrokes go by mainstream polling, though happy to be corrected!

[Zod]

FiF said:

Just as an update for some time now have been predicting UKIP seats at 3-8 possibly 10.

Might be about to revise that.

They're still going to create havoc. They're still going to get a load of good second places.
But how many seats. Detecting a bit of a slide, may be 1-6 range.

Still have a feeling of uncertainty that people really are pissed off with the current setup and the destabilising factor of that oaf Salmond having any pull.

It's all still too guessimetric though.

My feeling is that if Salmond messes around it is going to cause trouble. A small minority having so much influence will not be acceptable to the majority.

[Mrr T]

Esseesse said:

They manage to operate a selective school system in the Netherlands.

Are comprehensives any better than secondary moderns? Why do politicians not use them? Good schooling for the rich only.

Just about everyone (and I mean over 90%) on my university course was privately educated or went to one of the few remaining grammar schools (a good course at a good university, but not considered up there with a strictly academic course at a red brick).

Holland operates a selective system based on a Cito or other tests. However, its much more complex than that, with I think 10 different grades, and many routes through school. This is very different to the old UK system.

As for the difference between a secondary modern and a comprehensive they are not really comparable because of changes in behaviour etc. However, a secondary school assumed all of its pupils would leave at 15 or 16, and than only a few would even take O levels. Many did not even teach to O levels so any one who wanted to take them would have to attend a educational colleague.

The reason for changing the system was that secondary schools where failing many who did not get to grammar school because of a single 1 1/2 test.

I do not say our current system is working but going back to a failed system is not an option.

[Mrr T]

McWigglebum4th said:

Yes the selection process will fail some but it will also assist many others to be lifted out of poverty

However left wing logic seems to be they would prefer everyone to fail and everyone to be in poverty in the name of fairness

Actually the UK grammar school system systems failed far more than it assisted.

It failed:
a) The poor since the middle classes would teach to the test.
b) It failed many who failed the test because:
i) The test reflected a very narrow view of intelligence. Good at cross words you pass not good you fail.
ii) Those who failed by a narrow margin. It was estimated if the test was retaken about 5/10 percent of takers would have move between passing and failing.

Do not think I am left wing I agree with setting in schools and better discipline. I also know I failed the 11 plus despite being top in maths through out my infant school, and only managed to take A levels, get a degree and a professional qualification because my secondary modern changed to comprehensive when I was in year 2.

[MGJohn]

I also had the "benefit" of a Grammar school education. During my five years there, I developed much respect for my teachers. It was misplaced because then I simply did not know better. They were academics teaching us to be ... academics.

Then when leaving school aged sixteen, I was totally unprepared for the reality of earning a living and making my way in the world. My cousin, a few years older than I, who moved to Australia many moons ago following various jobs within the public sector at various levels, had his name up on the wall boards in gold lettering. He was head boy my school and well educated academically. There's a huge difference. The head boy whilst I was there later went on to become an accountant.

That so many of my grammar school friends and classmates went on to re-enter academia instead of a "proper" job, illustrates the failings of the system for me and the rest of the country as a whole.

Incidentally, I had no idea about ever taking the eleven-plus. I simply attended school and did whatever task was put in front of me. My parents at the time were more about splitting up the family with years of continuous arguing so guidance at any time was near to non-existent during my early formative years.

Despite all that and the system, I managed to survive .... just.

With my experience in mind, I now wonder if the current grammar school education has evolved more effectively and provides real benefits from every aspect.

[Axionknight]

MGJohn said:

I also had the "benefit" of a Grammar school education. During my five years there, I developed much respect for my teachers. It was misplaced because then I simply did not know better. They were academics teaching us to be ... academics.

Then when leaving school aged sixteen, I was totally unprepared for the reality of earning a living and making my way in the world. My cousin, a few years older than I, who moved to Australia many moons ago following various jobs within the public sector at various levels, had his name up on the wall boards in gold lettering. He was head boy my school and well educated academically. There's a huge difference. The head boy whilst I was there later went on to become an accountant.

That so many of my grammar school friends and classmates went on to re-enter academia instead of a "proper" job, illustrates the failings of the system for me and the rest of the country as a whole.

Incidentally, I had no idea about ever taking the eleven-plus. I simply attended school and did whatever task was put in front of me. My parents at the time were more about splitting up the family with years of continuous arguing so guidance at any time was near to non-existent during my early formative years.

Despite all that and the system, I managed to survive .... just.

With my experience in mind, I now wonder if the current grammar school education has evolved more effectively and provides real benefits from every aspect.

The first two paragraphs sound just like regular schools to my mind......

[Justayellowbadge]

Esseesse said:

HonestIago said:

Surely bookies must use polling of sorts?

Yes, but they have a financial incentive to report accurate odds surely? Their whole business centres around being right.

Bookies don't have to be accurate, they need to incentivise punters to bet such that the bookies make a profit whatever the outcome.

[4v6]

JustAnotherLogin said:

As far as I can see from the article she did not say that all UKIP supporters are racist (nor that no racists vote for other parties), just that there are a lot of racists voting for UKIP

One could debate how many racists there are in the country, but I would have thought that a racist is disportonately likely to vote for a party whose main 2 policies relate to UK nationalism and controlling immigration. Now some will vote for the more extreme parties, but it is likely that many will choose to vote for a party that has a better chance of "making a difference".
So I think it would be very surprising if a disprortionate number of racists are supporting UKIP.
In the absence of any evience to the contrary I cold logic would suggest that it is indeed true that a lot of racists will vote for UKIP, and a higher percentage than will vote for the Tories, Labour, LibDems or Greens.

That does not make UKIP a racist party, nor does it mean that all Kippers are racists.

TOSH!

Just what colour are all these "racists" then?
Or arent there any non white racists about?
And who do they vote for exactly?

[FiF]

Zod said:

My feeling is that if Salmond messes around it is going to cause trouble. A small minority having so much influence will not be acceptable to the majority.

This is partly the reason for my slight change in prediction.

I'd agree with Guam that a couple of the recent polls appear to be outliers. Couple that with the issue that it's the trend that matters and not individual results, furthermore it's the trend for a pollster with a specific technique and data handling method than just averaging across the whole set.

Problem I have is that the data says one thing yet, it's difficult not to think there should be a fudge factor as used by Michael Ashcroft.

Imo there are a few people not declaring VI for UKIP, no idea of the extent, just a gut feeling.

Again imo, considering that 80odd% of the electorate is English, if Salmond starts his Billy Big Spheres stuff again that will, I believe correctly, cause a negative reaction south of the border. That may mean benefit to Labour, possibly LD, certainly not UKIP or fringe parties.

Would it benefit Conservatives on the basis of keep Labour and Salmond out, possibly. Speculation obviously.

[MGJohn]

Justayellowbadge said:

Esseesse said:

HonestIago said:

Surely bookies must use polling of sorts?

Yes, but they have a financial incentive to report accurate odds surely? Their whole business centres around being right.

Bookies don't have to be accurate, they need to incentivise punters to bet such that the bookies make a profit whatever the outcome.

They do based on previous polls as well as current ones. However, money eventually does the talking. Back in the days when Hurd and Heseltine were shaping up as Thatcher's replacement, they were understandably at shorter odds for the job. Then out of the blue the odds on Major shortened dramatically. Someone knew something. Later, by coincidence, speaking to a friend who bought a relative's house, he told me that a betting shop near to the local Tory party HQ took a substantial wager on Major at long odds when hardly anybody knew his name... Money talks.. someone knew.

Correction.. It SHOUTS!

There again, there's no such thing as insider info...

[steveT350C]

BBC comedian tells teen cancer charity audience to stab Nigel Farage.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/25/comedia...