UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[anonymous-user]

dandarez said:

Jesus!
Re-write that again. At the moment it's simply gobbledygook!

I think you either meant to say "re-write that" or "write that again". Not "re-write that again".

I wondered whether putting too many ideas together at once might befuddle some of the less thoughtful UKIP supporters. I didn't expect them to identify themselves so readily though! Anyway, brenflys777 seems to have understood it. Perhaps time for you to break out your favourite finger to trace under the words as your eye scans them? Or even move your lips, if it helps.

Ps: amend the final "than" to "as" if you're still having trouble.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 13th April 01:42

[flyingvisit]

Greg66 said:

I think you either meant to say "re-write that" or "write that again". Not "re-write that again".

I wondered whether putting too many ideas together at once might befuddle some of the less thoughtful UKIP supporters. I didn't expect them to identify themselves so readily though! Anyway, brenflys777 seems to have understood it. Perhaps time for you to break out your favourite finger to trace under the words as your eye scans them? Or even move your lips, if it helps.

Ps: amend the final "than" to "as" if you're still having trouble.

Edited by Greg66 on Monday 13th April 01:42

Is this PH's most childish post ever?

[NicD]

flyingvisit said:

Greg66 said:

I think you either meant to say "re-write that" or "write that again". Not "re-write that again".

I wondered whether putting too many ideas together at once might befuddle some of the less thoughtful UKIP supporters. I didn't expect them to identify themselves so readily though! Anyway, brenflys777 seems to have understood it. Perhaps time for you to break out your favourite finger to trace under the words as your eye scans them? Or even move your lips, if it helps.

Ps: amend the final "than" to "as" if you're still having trouble.

Edited by Greg66 on Monday 13th April 01:42

Is this PH's most childish post ever?

I don't keep track and in fact, generally don't read his posts as they are often both nasty and incorrectly based, just like this one.
He was banned from the previous incarnation of this thread for showing his true self.

[FiF]

brenflys777 said:

JustAnotherLogin said:

But thats not true

The policy already allows one spouse to carry over the allowance from the other, and the announcement explicitly says if one partner is widowed already then they will still be given the allowance

As for divorce, each of the divorce couple gets £500k. And £500k + £500k makes?

It is true that divorced couples cannot aggregate allowances, but that does not seem unreasonable

Osborne explicitly said that only millionaires would pay. Two individuals with 500k each do not make a millionaire. Suzanne Evans explained that in her personal circumstances as less than a millionaire, her kids still would. I don't know the ins and outs well enough to be certain, but it appears to be another case of small print.

The point you were making earlier was perfectly clear to me at least. If a politician says an allowance is x the public, poor misguided plebs that they are, expect the allowance to be x.
Not half of x, and x only applies in the case of married couples, when it's the sum of their two allowances to make the headline figure. Oh yes, and if the first partner makes no bequests so that their full unused allowance remains. So to put it in PH terms that bequest of a much loved classic sports car to a favourite nephew as otherwise it will be left to rot perhaps. Of course some posters have no interest in cars.

Plus of course in some cases it won't be x at all and never will be.

But it's weasel words and the blind defence of them which makes people have such little trust, and politicians and their stoic defenders so disliked.

[NicD]

Call me cynical, but 'If a politician says an allowance is x'
I say, show me the small print once it is in law and don't bother me till then.

[FiF]

Guam said:

I wouldn't take issue with that
However it neatly misses the point doesn't it
It's the weighting which favours the lib dens whilst it is clear a different weighting that gives them ten times the seat on half the vote share
Now the reasons for this are well understood however the pollsters can't have it both ways
Clustering is either relevant to all weightings or none
That is the issue

That IS the issue and the problem is that the clustering for UKIP and the other small parties is largely an unknown factor.

Ashcroft tries to deal with it by largely limiting polling to what are perceived to be battleground seats. Must have spent 3/4 million so far. Traditionally these seats are where the GE will be won or lost. Not sure it's the right picture this time.

Down in the small print of most pollsters there are the caveats regarding clustering, high profile candidates, local issues and so on.

[rohrl]

I've posted this in Pedal Powered already but I suppose I should post it here too.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

UKIP have distributed this leaflet in Newcastle -



Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

[BGARK]

rohrl said:

Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

Where does it say UKIP objects to cycle lanes, it says its not costed and could be a waste of money, isn't that sensible or are you happy for our money not to be spent where its most needed?

[brenflys777]

I know it's a particular bee in my bonnet but...

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/03/17/2500...

The conservatives and Lib Dems have prioritised foreign aid amongst other things as worthy of increases whilst they have made substantial cuts already to Police and Armed Forces.

Labour promise more money for everything but their track record is poor.

UKIP are the only option for me when I see billions of pounds being guaranteed to foreign countries with minimal oversight, whilst the Police and other essential services are gutted. If I was pro EU or just didn't like UKIP, I would have to abstain or wipe my arse with the ballot paper. How have the conservatives become so unconservative with our money.

Edited by brenflys777 on Monday 13th April 18:29

[MGJohn]

BGARK said:

rohrl said:

Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

Where does it say UKIP objects to cycle lanes, it says its not costed and could be a waste of money, isn't that sensible or are you happy for our money not to be spent where its most needed?

Wossamadder with this Nation in recent years?

Cycle use on a steep increase locally. Both commuters and cycling enthusiasts in lycra. My Local council has spent large sums making cycle lanes safely out of the way of heavy traffic all over and outside the City areas. Plus kerbside dedicated lanes where safe separation not possible. Must have cost a fortune and I use them and so do my sons. However, when out and about in our cars, most other cyclists prefer the less safe roads mixing it and taking unnecessary risks and chances with heavy traffic. Not those much safer dedicated cycle paths with safe provision for pedestrians. Rarely see anyone walking anywhere lately, just the occasional fitness type out for a run.

Plebs and Pheasants!



Yuz cudnee mek eet oop...

[Esseesse]

BGARK said:

rohrl said:

Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

Where does it say UKIP objects to cycle lanes, it says its not costed and could be a waste of money, isn't that sensible or are you happy for our money not to be spent where its most needed?

Indeed. If £10M is going to be squandered on the kinds of cycle lanes like the one pictured (common in the UK), then it's highly likely IMO that they should save the money. Only cycle lanes up to the standard of what they build in the Netherlands should be considered, and in time would provide far better value.

i.e. Separated from traffic as far as possible...



(incidentally whilst searching for an image, it seems that in Manchester they may be looking into taking a leaf or two from the Dutch... http://www.tfgm.com/buspriority/Pages/website/rout...)

[tangerine_sedge]

rohrl said:

I've posted this in Pedal Powered already but I suppose I should post it here too.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

UKIP have distributed this leaflet in Newcastle -



Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

I can't believe that UKIP have sent that out, it's a joke surely? Did a UKIP official really sign that off as acceptable?

Basically, old car owners are more worthy than young cycle users? Really? That's the level of the UKIP argument. It's so transparently aimed at getting the grey vote, it's just pathetic.

Perhaps UKIP should go with the following next time :

"Council spends money on play equipment for local parks despite not knowing how many children play in the area. Why waste all that money on young people who can't even vote yet (and if they did they'd probably vote Labour), when they could be giving away free tea and werthers originals to anyone who can remember pre-decimal currency.

I'll tell you another thing about young people, they all grow up to be drug fiends and hang around on street corners just waiting to make babies. That's right, foreign babies who just want to spend your hard-earned pension money on extravagances like nappies and baby food. And another thing, it was all better in my day....etc...etc.."

[BGARK]

tangerine_sedge said:

it's just pathetic.

1. It is not what is says.
2. I am young(ish)
3. I cycle to work daily, and there isn't a single safe cycle lane I use. ££££'s on paint solves nothing for cyclists.
4. See point 1.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Guam said:

I wouldn't take issue with that
However it neatly misses the point doesn't it
It's the weighting which favours the lib dens whilst it is clear a different weighting that gives them ten times the seat on half the vote share
Now the reasons for this are well understood however the pollsters can't have it both ways
Clustering is either relevant to all weightings or none
That is the issue

Well actually there were a few other questions that I did address.

But the answer to your question is very simple and has nothing to do with a "weighting"
1) The LibDem vote is very concentrated in to a small geographical area. That is pretty well known, so I'm surprised at the question. Similar in a sense to the SNP whose vote is of course even more concentrated, so they get more MPS tper vote than anyone.

2) There is a strong effect that Ashcroft commented on that where a Lib Dem is the incumbent MP, then they are more likely to attract striong support irrespective of national trends. So it is harder to dislodge a sitting Lib Dem MP than you might expect

[ninjacost]

https://uk.screen.yahoo.com/uk-general-election-20... more media hysterics over a none event ffs

[don4l]

tangerine_sedge said:

rohrl said:

I've posted this in Pedal Powered already but I suppose I should post it here too.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

UKIP have distributed this leaflet in Newcastle -



Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

Basically, old car owners are more worthy than young cycle users? Really? That's the level of the UKIP argument. It's so transparently aimed at getting the grey vote, it's just pathetic.

You should recognise that you have completely lost the argument when you have to invent a strawman to argue against.

He didn't say that old car owners are more worthy than young cycle users, did he?

You just made that up, and then you argued against yourself.

Not only that, but you also think that the entire Internet are too dumb to see what you tried to do.

The truth is that the entire Internet can see that you don't have a point... because you had to make stuff up.

I do love the adversarial nature of this thread, but I would ask that the lefties please stop making up stuff. It is beginning to get a bit tedious. Furthermore, it only serves to make you look incredibly stupid.

[anonymous-user]

On the subject of making things up: (thankfully) very nearly but not quite all of the "entire internet" could not care less about this thread and won't be expending any energy seeing through things posted in it.

[nickfrog]

rohrl said:

I've posted this in Pedal Powered already but I suppose I should post it here too.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-new...

UKIP have distributed this leaflet in Newcastle -



Objecting to cycle lanes because they discriminate against the elderly appears a bit strange.

How populist can one be ? Almost comical. Cyclists are not popular ? Let's go for them, we'll then be popular. The amount of paranoia and Freudian projection of one's own insecurity in that leaflet is almost as high as the amount of intellectual dishonesty displayed by the UKIPists in this thread who will not accept that UKIP can ever do anything wrong, and whoever dare say otherwise is simply a Maoist.

[anonymous-user]

nickfrog said:

How populist can one be ? Almost comical. Cyclists are not popular ? Let's go for them, we'll then be popular. The amount of paranoia and Freudian projection of one's own insecurity in that leaflet is almost as high as the amount of intellectual dishonesty displayed by the UKIPists in this thread who will not accept that UKIP can ever do anything wrong, and whoever dare say otherwise is simply a Maoist.

Assuming it is genuine and sanctioned by UKIP high command, it illustrates neatly a point I made after the TV debate: UKIP's "policy pool" is in reality pretty shallow and there isn't enough material in it to last a month of intense elector and media attention. Hence it ends up putting out things like this, which have micro if not nano levels of importance in the context of a GE campaign.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Guam said:

You are getting to my point that is exactly the clustering I have been raising
They rightly allow for that with the Lib dems, however it is clear to most that UKIP support is not evenly spread across the country and there is strong indication that the same clustering effect is in play as with the lib dens
If so then only forecasting two seats on double the lib dem vote is sloppy at best
They could use last years euros to assess the impact of this, they seem reluctant do so it would appear.
Anyone spending time out East will recognise support is apparently well above the national poll figure
Something FIF and I have been stating for some time
This as with the lib dems would resulti higher seat results than the national data would suggest??

Oh no doubt there is some, but I would suggest the evidence actually shows that it is far less than SNP or Libdems. And of course the 2nd factor does not apply (or at the very most applies in 2 cases). Remember that the clustering has to be sufficient to get past the big 3.

For example, if you look at Ashfords constituency polling, you can see lots of seats where UKIP has numbers consistent with the national polls or higher and is still in 2nd or 3rd place by some margin
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/constituency-polls/
picking some at random:
Great Yarmouth 31% (2nd)
Great Grimsby 26% (2nd)
Colchester 17% (3rd)
Thanet South 32% (2nd)
Dewsbury 18% (3rd)
Eastleigh 21% (3rd)
Derby North 17% (3rd)

Now some of those polls may be a few months ago, and obviously in the case of Thanet particularly there are contrary indications, but you get the point I hope.


But I would be interested to see any evidence to suggest the opposite